Acts 5,6 (Bible Study)
-
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
-
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
-
Acts of Jesus through the Apostles
Introduction to Acts 5
The forces opposing the church now come and launch three different attacks. The first in 5:1-12, another in 5:17-42, and a third in 6:1-6. But the Spirit enables the Christians to make an effective defence in each case.
‘If the chief actor in the story of Acts 1 and 2 is the Holy Spirit, [now] the chief actor… almost seems to be Satan. True he is identified only once by name, but his activity may be discerned throughout.’ (Stott, p.88)
1. 4:32-37. How does v31 lead to v32? In what ways does the filling of the Holy Spirit and boldness (v31) relate to the radical sharing of material possessions?
First, we must understand the basic mark of Spirit-filledness is "boldness", as 4:31 tells us. Why is that? Read Romans 8:15-16. There we are shown that the Spirit's work is to oppose a "spirit of fear". If the Holy Spirit is the opposite of fearfulness, the mark of Spirit-filledness would, of course, be fearlessness. But specifically how does the Holy Spirit make us fearless? Romans 8:15-16 tells us that the Spirit assures us of our being children of God. (In the same way, the Spirit assured and empowered Jesus for ministry at his baptism, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.") This then is the nature of Spirit- boldness. It is a deep assurance of the Father's love for us personally through Christ.
Second, we must see that there were two forms that this Spirit- boldness took in the life of the early church.
A. First, of course is boldness in word. This we see in v.31. Despite the threat of official persecution, they "spoke the word of God boldly". They were not afraid of the risks involved with such speaking. Such risks included social marginalization, imprisonment, and even death.
B. Second, however is boldness in deed. This we see in v.32-36, though usually the connection between v.31 and these verses is missed. (We need to remember that when Luke wrote his material, there were no chapters or verses or headings — all such divisions were added later.) Luke clearly sees the lifestyle of radical giving and sharing of wealth as proceding from the filling of the Holy Spirit.
This sheds much light on how the Bible sees our attitude to possessions. A lack of generosity is not so much caused by stinginess as by fearfulness. The more the Christians were assured of God's love for them — the more spiritually secure and confident and fearless they became in that assurance — the more generous they became. They opened their homes and purses to others. This is an extremely important insight. Most people do not come close to the Biblical guideline on giving (10% of income or a "tithe" — Mal.3:8-10, Luke 11:42), but the main reason is cowardice, a lack of courage. The early church was not afraid of the risks involved in this kind of giving. The risks include a) a lack of a personal financial "cushion" for your own emergencies, b) the possibility of your gifts being used improperly or at least ineffectively, c) and less disposable income for your own comforts and pleasures as they arise.
So the generosity and sharing of v.32 is directly caused by the Spirit-filling of v.31. In fact, we can use v.32 as a sign of the fullness of the Spirit. If your own life is not characterized by a new and surprising (even to you!) generosity, then the assuring work of the Spirit is not very strong in you.
2. 4:32-33 and 6:6-7. How do we see word-witness relate to deed-witness in the life of the early church? What implications does this have for your own witness here and now?
Verse 33, which speaks of the "great power" of the apostle's preaching Christ's resurrection, follows immediately upon the v.32 statement of economic sharing, and it is followed by still more description of the early church's generosity in v.34-37. Why does Luke insert this statement about "word-witness" in the midst of this description of the church's communal life? Luke is saying that the power of the apostles' preaching was both backed by and enhanced by the practical sharing of the Christian community. In other words, the apostles talked about the power of Christ's resurrection with arguments and evidences,
while the community embodied and demonstrated the reality of Christ's resurrection with newness of heart, life, and relationships.
In chapter 6 we see the very same thing. Several men are chosen to lead the church's ministry to poor widows (see below for more information). This ministry was one of the church's ministry of practical giving and service to the material needs of people. As soon as this ministry is strengthened in 6:1-6, Luke adds, "so the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly" (v.7). Luke is again pointing out the extremely close connection between deed-ministry and word-ministry. The word "so" at the beginning of v.7 shows that the numerical growth — the evangelistic effectiveness — of the church was given a huge boost by the ministry to the poor widows. Again we see that the practical actions of Christians for people in need demonstrated the truth and power of the gospel. Therefore more people believed it.
It is a most interesting thing to notice that, once the "deacons" were working with the poor, many of the new converts to Christianity were priests (v.7) Why? Some have remembered that the Old Testament gave the priests the duty of distributing resources to the poor. Maybe Jewish priests, seeing the church's work with the poor, got very convicted! The church was embodying the caring, priestly heart that God had required of his people Israel.
The relationship between word and deed is therefore extremely close and "works both ways". On the one hand, the preaching of the Word produces faith (Rom.10:16-18) which in turn produces good deeds toward people in need (James 2:1-23), since the gospel of salvation through grace alone humbles us and makes us kind toward the poor (II Cor.8:8-9). But on the other hand, practical ministry to the material needs of people are evidences which God uses to open the hearts of people to the gospel (Acts 4:32-33, 6:6-7; John 13:35, I John 3:17-18). So word ministry leads to deed ministry and deed ministry leads to word ministry. Word and deed must never be separated in the Christian life from one another (Is.1:13-15, 17)
3. 5:1-12. What was the sin of Ananias and Sappphira? Why was it so serious and so seriously dealt with? How can we a) fall into a similar trap, and b) avoid it?
Luke contrasts Barnabus, who sold some property and donated the proceeds (4:36) with Ananias and Sapphira, who did the same (5:1-12). On the outside, the two actions were the same, yet Barnabus is commended while Ananias' act is condemned and solemnly judged. Why the difference? At first sight, it would seem that the sin was that "he kept back part of the money for himself" (v.2). But Peter later on says that he was under no obligation to either sell the property nor to donate all the proceeds. "Didn't it [the land] belong to you… and after it sold, was not the money at your disposal?" (v.4). These are rhetorical questions. Thus Peter is saying that there were no requirements, either to sell the land nor to give all the money. All these actions were voluntary.
So what was the problem? Peter says that it was because (he says twice) "you lied" (v.3 and 4). In other words, they posed as if they were giving the whole price of the land. They wanted the credit and the honor in the community of being sacrificial givers — but they did not want to pay the (literal) cost for it. In short, Ananias and Sapphira's motive for giving was not God's honor but their honor, and it was not concern to benefit the poor, but concern to benefit themselves. Their sin was hypocrisy, false piety — a lack of integrity.
Why did Ananias and Sapphira die? Some people try to "get God off the hook" by proposing that they only died a natural death, from the physiological stress that a profoundly guilty conscience can create. (Lie detectors really detect the physical stress that comes from guilt.) Ananias and Sapphira therefore may have died from strokes or heart attacks that came from the shame and guilt of public exposure. (If they were elderly or infirm, this is extremely possible.) Now this explanation is quite possible, but it does not "get God off the hook"! Even if the causes were natural, not miraculous, the fact that both husband and wife succumbed in this manner was a clear sign to the church that this was God's judgement (v.11). God's judgement is not "either/or". We do not ask: "did they die of stroke/heart attack due to stress or was it the judgement of God." Apparently, it was both.
Why was this sin seen as so serious? Remember what it was — hypocrisy. Throughout all the centuries nothing has hurt the work and witness of the church more than this. There is no more common complaint than "there are so many hypocrites in the church". G.K.Chesterton was reputed to have said, "the greatest argument against the truth of Christianity is the lives of Christians." That is absolutely true. Even the most convinced Christians are often cast into doubt by the thought: "if the gospel is true — how can so many supposed Christians be so dishonest and cruel?"
Therefore, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira is the most devastating sin to the Christian church. Murder, embezzlement, adultery, etc. are relatively less harmful to the gospel, because they are very visible, and when a person is guilty of such a sin, there is exposure and usually expulsion. But Ananias and Sapphira were guilty of spiritual pride, and were using Christianity as a way to get a reputation for being moral and spiritual "pillars". They had obviously missed the gospel's message of free grace to unworthy sinners. Thus their Christianity was really a way for them to earn their reputation and sense of worth through spiritual achievements. They would have perhaps risen up into places of leadership in the church. They would have made the church a proud, smug, legalistic place. Yes, the sin was enormously dangerous.
This may be the reason that Peter says that this was a "lie to the Holy Spirit" (v.3, 4). Obviously, no one consciously believes that you can deceive God, so Ananias was not making a deliberate effort to do so. But Peter is saying that to try to deceive the church is to try to deceive the Holy Spirit. Lying and hypocrisy means the death of the radically loving, supernatural, spiritual community which was being so powerfully used to spread the gospel (4:32-37). To try to use the people of God rather than serve the people of God is really an effort to use and deceive the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a stab at the heart of God.
How can we fall into this same trap? Probably, the "sin under the sin" of Ananias and Sapphira was that they were using God to get a righteous reputation, rather than serving God out of gratitude for his giving them the righteousness of Christ. In other words, they were Christian Pharisees, using religion to look and feel superior to others. They "missed" the humbling gospel of grace. But that is reading a bit between the lines. The basic sin of Ananias and Sapphira was to present themselves as something they were not. They posed as spiritual giants, when they were actually struggling with pride and materialism. If they had come in to the church and gotten up and confessed their struggle with sin (even after they had done this swindle), then they would have been honest with the Holy Spirit (whose mission in the world is to convict of sin, John 16:8). The real sin of hypocrisy is a refusal to live in honest repentance. So in the church today, there is no sin that completely breaks fellowship, ruins the church's witness, and destroys your relationship with God — except the refusal to repent! (As we said above, even robbery and adultery cannot in any final way destroy our relationships with God and others — only a refusal to honestly repent can do that.) So we fall into the same trap when we allow sin to continue in our lives, but outside we tell no one, make ourselves accountable to no one, and we live and minister in the church as if there are no problems.
How can we avoid the trap? Informally, we must be accountable. We must tell some other Christians about "besetting" temptations and habitual sins and we must be honest with them and let them "hold our feet to the fire". But formally, we must let this incident remind us of the importance of church discipline. This does not teach that people who sin are to be killed! It teaches that we need our churches to hold its members accountable, and to confront them when necessary, as Peter does here. Why? Hypocrisy in the church undermines the work of the Holy Spirit enormously. But let us notice that "church discipline" does not mean that we confront every Christian about ever sin. Since we are all sinners — that would leave no time for anything else in the church. Rather, we are to confront people who are refusing to repent, for spiritual hypocrisy. Paul tells us that, when we do this, we are to do it with extreme gentleness (Gal.6:1-3). The open, strong public rebuke by Peter here in Acts 5 is something of a special case. Peter is given supernatural knowledge of Ananias' action and motive, and the two deaths are very severe. Probably this event was unusual because the entire Christian church in the world consisted of one congregation, and so God was taking special care with it!
4. 5:12-42. Survey this long passage and make a list of the characteristics of a spiritually vital church.
There is much to list - these are some suggestions…..
a. v.13. On the one hand, a vital church alienates people. The early church was somewhat intimidating and unnerving to some people. No one else dared join them. In light of the next verses, we know that this did not mean that they did not add new people. It means that the presence of God in their meetings was both attractive and frightening for some.
b. v.13. On the other hand, a vital church is highly respected by unbelievers. Though they were highly regarded by the people. John Stott believes that this paradoxical principle is normal for spiritually alive churches:
"On the one hand an awestruck reserve… on the other great missionary successes. This paradoxical situation has often recurred since then. The presence of the living God, whether manifest through preaching or miracles or both, is alarming to some and appealing to others. Some are frightened away, while others are drawn to faith." Stott Acts, p.113.
c. v.14. A vital church grows rapidly. More and more… were added to their number. The rate of numerical church growth varies widely depending on the work of the Spirit and the spiritual receptivity of the people and place. But new people will be converted.
d. v.15-16. A vital church has people bringing their friends to Christ. People brought the sick… is said twice. People brought their friends with needs to the church. Now in the early church we see an unusual amount of miraculous healing going on. As we noted before, miracles do not occur throughout the Bible uniformly. They come in clusters and a special times. We cannnot insist that miracles is a necessary sign of vitality. Why? As we can see from here, and from texts like Hebrews 2:3-4 , miracles were only a means to an end — the end being the converting of people to faith in the gospel. If we see people coming to Christ in droves — coming to get help and have their lives changed by the gospel — then it would be foolish to long for more miracles! To focus on miracles too much is to miss the principle in these verses — friends bringing friends to the church! That is a sign of a vital community.
e. v.17-24. A vital church gets persecuted. Not only will some people be uncomfortable with the church (v.13), but some people will be openly hostile. If we get no persecution at all, we are probably not living consistent and courageous Christian lives. (cf. 2 Tim.3:12)
f. v.41. A vital church suffers with joy. Many troubles will happen to us whether we are Christians or not. But Christians meet sufferings, especially persecutions, with joy.
5. Read Acts 6:1-6. What does this passage teach us about the marks of a vital church?
a) The local church is supposed to minister in deed as well as word. (See question #2). Verse 1 speaks of the "daily distribution". In the Greek, the verse literally says, "the daily diakonia". "Diakonia" means "practical service", and it is the word from which we derive our word "deacon". "Diakonia" was a Greek word that meant to "wait on tables" and to feed people. We see then that the early church did not only have a ministry of the Word (v.2), but a ministry of service, feeding people who were hungry. This ministry is important enough to have its own leaders and officers. These leaders are put "over" this ministry (v.3). Thus we see a vital church has a balance of word and deed.
b) The leaders delegate! The apostles see that they cannot "do it all". We have to remember that these are the apostles of Jesus — uniquely empowered and gifted. But they have to decide what to concentrate on (v.4). In the church, we cannot expect the clergy to do it all. And we ourselves must determine our calling and concentrate on it. In a vital church, the whole Body of Christ is involved in ministry.
c) The vital church selects its leaders, not on the basis of popularity, but on the basis of spiritual maturity. These seven men were "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom" (v.3). The people elected the men (v.5) but the apostles ordained them (v.6). This means that in a vital church there is a "balance" between the will of the congregation and the screening of the officers of the church.
d) The vital church has both the problems and the wisdom to handle "diversity". The reason for the problem was that two ethnic groups inside the church were not getting along (v.1). The Greek speakers felt that they were being discriminated against. Instead of telling them to be quiet, the apostles knew that the situation took more attention and care than they could provide, and so they created a board (some would say that it was the first board of "deacons") to work for reconciliation between culturally diverse people. Scholars notice that some of the leaders' names were Hebrew and some were Greek. Thus the apostles were "sensitive" to the need for Greek-speakers to rise up in leadership, if all the ethnic groups were to feel well served. So today, if we are sharing the faith well, our churches will become culturally diverse. If minorites within the church feel they are being overlooked, we should not ask them to "be quiet", but should listen to them. Most important is to encourage members of the different groups to rise up into leadership.
Conclusion: The forces opposed to the church had three weapons. First, there was hypocrisy inside the church (5:1-12). Second, there was persecution from outside the church (5:17-42). Third, there was division and "burn out" going on within the ministry of the church (6:1-7). The Spirit helps the church face each one. It faced hypocrisy with discipline, it faced persecution with boldness, and it faced burn out/division with creative new lay ministry structures. Thus the gospel marches on!
