John Chrysostom (349-407) on Justification

 

“The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, 'Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.'” 1


“For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that 'it was excluded,' he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? 'By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.' See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “'aw of faith?' It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” 2


“For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.” 3


“And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows.” 4


“For they said that the one who does not keep the law is cursed, while he shows that the one who strives to keep it is cursed and the one who does not strive to keep it is blessed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed.” 5


“God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.” 6



(1) Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.

(2) NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.

(3) NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8

(4) NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, 3:8.

(5) Homily on Galatians 3:9-10, Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 40. 3:8.

(6) Homily on Epesians 4:2, Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.

Chrysostom on Predestination

Then because He said above “And the sheep hear his voice, and follow him,” lest any should say, “What then is this to those who believe not?” hear what He addeth, “And I know My sheep, and am known of Mine.” As Paul declared when he said, “God hath not rejected His people whom He foreknew” ( Rom. xi. 2 ); and Moses, “The Lord knew those that were His” ( 2 Tim. ii. 19; comp. Num. xvi. 5); “those,” He saith, “I mean, whom He foreknew.” Then that thou mayest not deem the measure of knowledge to be equal, hear how He setteth the matter right by adding, “I know My sheep, and am known of Mine.” But the knowledge is not equal. “Where is it equal?” In the case of the Father and Me, for there, "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father.” Had He not wished to prove this, why should He have added that expression? Because He often ranked Himself among the many, therefore, lest any one should deem that He knew as a man knoweth, He added, “As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father.” “I know Him as exactly as He knoweth Me.” Wherefore He said, “No man knoweth the Son save the Father, nor the Father save the Son” (Luke x. 22), speaking of a distinct kind of knowledge, and such as no other can possess.

John Chrysostom, Homily 60 on John

John Chrysostom: Golden-Tongued Preacher

John Chrysostom: Golden-Tongued Preacher

Introduction

"Almighty God, who hast given to us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto Thee; and dost promise, that when two or three are gathered together in Thy name Thou wilt grant their requests: fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of Thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of Thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting, Amen."

This beautiful prayer, so appropriate for worship, is taken from the liturgy of Chrysostom. It was used in the worship services which he, as the most famous preacher in the early church, used in leading God's people to the worship of their Lord.

Preaching has always been the life blood of the church. From the preaching of the apostles in the early church to the pulpits of God's church today, preaching has always occupied a central and important place. Only when Rome introduced into the church meaningless and godless practices did preaching decline and all but disappear from the worship of the saints. The Reformation was, above all, brought about by preaching -- simple, biblical, expository preaching. And so it has been in the 400 years since the Reformation. When the church was strong, the pulpit was strong. When the church was infiltrated with false doctrine and worldliness, it was because the pulpit had failed. When reformation came into the church, it came on the wings of preaching.

It is not amiss, therefore, to consider the greatest preacher of the ancient church, John Chrysostom. Not only has his name become synonymous with preaching, but the last part of his name, "Chrysostom," was given him because the name means "Golden-mouthed," and was indicative of the high respect granted him as a minister of the gospel.

His Early Life

 John was born in Syrian Antioch in 347 from Secundus, a pagan military officer, and Anthusa, a godly woman of great moral force and character. She married young and was widowed at the age of 20. When Secundus died, John was an infant, and his spiritual nurture came from his mother. So careful was she in John's religious instruction that a prominent heathen of the day said in astonishment at her devotion, "Bless me! What women these Christians have."

 Antioch, where the believers were first called Christians, had become a worldly and godless city. One writer put it this way -- and it gives us some idea of the environment in which John was reared:

The warmth of the climate disposed the natives to the most intemperate enjoyment of tranquility and opulence, and the lively licentiousness of the Greeks was blended with the hereditary softness of the Syrians. Fashion was the only law, pleasure the only pursuit, and the splendor of dress and furniture was the only distinction of the citizens of Antioch. The arts of luxury were honored, the serious and manly virtues were the subject of ridicule, and the contempt for female modesty and reverent age announced the universal corruption of the capital of the East.

He was given an excellent education in the best schools in Antioch, studying especially philosophy and rhetoric in preparation for a career in law. He was not immediately baptized by his mother, chiefly because of some erroneous views of baptism which prevailed in the church at that time. These views, held by some in the church, consisted mainly in the notion that baptism washed away all previous sins. It was considered wise, therefore, to postpone baptism so as to be free of as many sins as possible. At 23 years of age John was baptized by Miletus, the bishop of the church in his city. Later John himself would protest this practice of delaying baptism, but he does mark his own conversion as happening in his 20th year.

After his conversion he abandoned his studies in law and a secular career and devoted himself exclusively to the work of the church. In preparation for this work, he studied under Diodore, who had founded a monastic school, but who was influential in the establishment of a Seminary in that city.

This is worthy of more than passing note, for the Seminary in Antioch was devoted to the principle of biblical interpretation which insisted that the literal meaning of Scripture was the correct one. Antioch took a position contrary to the Seminary in Alexandria, Egypt, which promoted an allegorical method of interpretation. The tradition of the Seminary at Antioch, however, was the tradition in the church during those periods when preaching was strong, and it is still the method held today in all orthodox Seminaries. God used this education to prepare John for his work as preacher. A fellow student was Theodore, later bishop of the church in Mopsuesta, and himself a leading church father.

John had strong leanings towards the monastic life, but refrained from entering a monastery because of his mother's wishes. Only after she died did he retire for 10 years to live the life of a hermit in the hills outside Antioch. As a hermit he brought irreparable damage to his health and bore bodily afflictions to his deathbed.

His Service to the Church

But God had more important work for John. He was summoned to return to Antioch where he first became a lector (reader of Scripture in the worship service), then a deacon in 381, then a minister in the church. It was during this period that he wrote a book on the nurture of children and another on the ministry entitled, "The Priesthood." Both gained for him a reputation of excellence, for they were filled with profound wisdom.

Nevertheless, he was above all a preacher. Already while he was studying for law, his oratorical gifts were noticed; but God put them to use in the service of the ministry of the Word.

For 12 years he occupied the pulpit in the church of Antioch. It was his custom, as it has been in our own Reformed tradition, to preach series. Many of his sermons are still extant. He preached 67 sermons on Genesis, 90 on Matthew, 88 on John, 32 on Romans, 74 on I and II Corinthians, as well as series on other books. He preached not only on the Lord's day, but also during the week, sometimes five days in succession. His auditorium was always packed with people, and sometimes the congregation, appreciative of his preaching, would break out in spontaneous applause -- for which he severely reprimanded them.

One noteworthy incident demonstrates the power of his preaching. During the Lenten season of 387 the people of Antioch rioted over new taxes imposed upon them by the emperor Theodosius and burned a number of statues of the emperor and his family. Theodosius threatened to destroy the city in his anger and sent troops into the city to quell the rioting and judges to try the instigators of the riot. John took the occasion to preach 20 sermons on the subject, "On the Statutes," in which he reminded the people of their responsibilities to those whom God had put over them and reminded the emperor of the evils of undue cruelty. These sermons served to bring about a quietness in the city and an amnesty from the emperor. One writer of the time said of these sermons: "Though such a crowd had come together, the silence was as deep as though not a single person had been present." One is reminded of Luther's sermons which quelled the disorders in Wittenburg, brought on by the unruly Zwickau prophets.

Because of his great preaching powers, he was appointed by the agent of the emperor to be minster in Constantinople. He had to be escorted out of the city by troops because of the great devotion of his people in whose midst he had labored for twelve years.

The pulpit in Constantinople was the most prestigious in the entire Eastern Church, and perhaps in the entire church. It was, after the time of Constantine the Great, the capital of the empire. on the shores of the Bosporus in Greece, it was the most influential church of the time.

But it was not long before John was in trouble. Great preacher that he was, he feared no one and preached the Scriptures regardless whom he offended. Because Constantinople was the imperial city, it was filled with luxury and corruption, intrigue and depravity. Against all these sins John preached with vehemence and force; and his preaching earned him the undying hatred of the Empress Eudoxia. Conniving with the bishops of Alexandria, she secured his exile across the Bosporus, but it was to last only a short time. He returned in triumph to his pulpit and continued to condemn the evils in the city. He probably, from an earthly point of view, made his fatal mistake when he called Eudoxia another Herodias who would not rest till she had obtained the head of John.

His Martyrdom

This time John had gone too far. The emperor deposed him; John refused to obey the command to abdicate his pulpit. The emperor sent troops into the cathedral during a baptism ceremony and mixed the blood of the worshipers with the water used for baptism. John was exiled to Cucresus in the Taurus mountains of Armenia. he described his feelings upon being exiled in a letter.

When I was driven from the city, I felt no anxiety, but said to myself: If the empress wishes to banish me, let her do so; "the earth is the Lord's." If she wants to have me sawn asunder, I have Isaiah for an example. If she wants me to be drowned in the ocean, I think of Jonah. If I am to be thrown into the fire, the three men in the furnace suffered the same. If cast before wild beasts, I remember Daniel in the lions' den. If she wants me to be stoned, I have before me Stephen, the first martyr. If she demands my head, let her do so; John the Baptist shines before me. Naked I came from my mother's womb, naked shall I leave this world. Paul reminds me, "If I still pleased men, I would not be the servant of Christ."

In Exile

Even in exile his influence continued, for people from Antioch and other parts of the empire came to visit him, and he carried on correspondence with all parts of the empire -- a total of 242 letters.

And so the empress had him banished to another place so far removed from the churches that he could have no influence at all: the remote northeast corner of the Black Sea called, Pitys. On the way, he was cruelly treated by the soldiers and died during the journey. The year was 407. He was buried in an obscure grave.

But the church honored him, and several years later exhumed his body and moved it to a grave in Constantinople. He died a martyr for the faith in a time when there was supposed to be no persecution.

"The personal appearance of the golden-mouthed orator was not imposing, but dignified and winning. He was of small stature (like David, Paul, Athanasius, Melanchton, and others). He had an emaciated frame, a large, bald head, a lofty, wrinkled forehead, deep-set, bright, piercing eyes, pallid, hollow cheeks, and a short, gray beard."

He was a preacher who emphasized the moral aspects of the Christian faith. He himself described his work in this way: "My work is like that of a man who is trying to clean a piece of ground into which a muddy stream is constantly flowing."

In keeping with his times, he held some views which were later considered erroneous by the church. Orthodox in all matters to which the church had addressed itself, he took a weak position on the depravity of man and the power of sin in man's nature. But these issues were not to be defined until the work of the great church father, Augustine.

He has gone down in history as one of the church's great preachers. Fearless, catering to no man, willing to suffer the consequences of his firm commitment to Scripture, he is an abiding testimony of the importance of the preaching in the church. May God give such preachers to the church today.

Taken from: Portraits of Faithful Saints, Chapter 6, by Herman Hanko

Patristic Witnesses to the Reformed Doctrine of Imputation and Justification

1. 1 Clement, chap. XLIX: “For the love which he had unto us, he gave his blood for us, according to his purpose, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.” Note that we have a testimony taken from the very prime of undoubted antiquity, where we are told: 1. The cause of Christ’s death, viz., His love to us. 2. Its object — us, or believers. 3. The manner how he redeemed us: by substitution.

2. Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter IX: “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

3. Gregory of Nyssa, Oration 2 on Canticles: “He has transferred unto Himself the filth of my sins, and communicated unto me His purity, and made me partaker of His beauty.”

4. Augustine, Enchiridion, 41: “He, then being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us …”

5 Chrysostom, Homily XI on 2 Cor. On verse 21: “What words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? ‘For the righteous,’ saith he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not ‘made’ [Him] a sinner, but ’sin;’ not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but ‘that had not even known sin; that we’ also ‘might become,’ he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, ‘righteousness,’ and, ‘the righteousness of God.’ For this is [the righteousness] ‘of God’ when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is ‘the righteousness of God.’”

6. Bernard, Epistle 190: “It was man who owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For if one, says S. Paul, died for all, then were all dead (2 Cor. v. 14), so that, as One bore the sins of all, the satisfaction of One is imputed to all. It is not that one forfeited, another satisfied; the Head and body is one, viz., Christ.”

Cessationism in the Early Church

The two following quotations are from the 4th Century. The matter-of-factness of both statements is rather startling. Neither author feels that any explanation is necessary. The study of Church History is important, and the following two quotes will show how history can speak to our current situation. Most Continuists assume (and many assert) that the so-called charismata have been uninterruptedly active throughout the history of the Church. Having said that, ponder the two quotations below by Chrysostom (d.407) and Augustine (d.430).

Chrysostom - writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, "This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?" (AD 347-407). Homily XXIX. 1 Corinthians

Augustine - comments on Acts 2:4: "In the earliest times, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed; and they spake with tongues," which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance." These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away." Homily 6 on the First Epistle of John

Chrysostom on Romans 1:26-27

Talk about politically incorrect! I have been re-reading some of the notes I jotted down several years ago as I read through Romans. I noticed several quotes I copied from Chrysostom's homilies on Romans. In looking at this passage he notes that God's in judgment upon idolators, he gives them over to (1) impurity, (2) degrading passions, and (3) an undiscerning debased mind. He notes the severity of the judgment on many levels. Primarily, that in homosexuality the soul is more the sufferer and more dishonored by this sin than the body is by any disease. It is not that people were hindered from natural and legitimate intercourse, rather they dishonored what was natural and ran after what was contrary to nature. This is one of the proofs of the evil of such an act: All humanity would go extinct in one generation if this became the norm.

The next wrung down, Chrysostom notes, is the self-degredation of women. Women have always been the guardians of public morality. The most foul-mouthed man of a generation ago, watched his language in front of women, and certain subjects were simply taboo in "mixed company." Paul does not say that these men and women were enamored with each other. No! He says they "burned in their lust toward one another." Chrysostom suggests that this is Satan's attempt to destroy the human race because the sexual desire is what, on a biological level, draws the sexes together. So Satan severs this bond and draws people into unnatural acts. Chysostom writes, "He shows that the punishment was in the pleasure itself...While doing themsleves such injury, they smile and revel over what has happened." This insight was seen by Plato (Theaet 176,7) and Sophocles (Ajax 265-277), nevertheless Greek society was riddled with homosexuality. Solon evidently thought it was a privilege too great for slaves and allowed it from free men only. Chrysostom notes that it is worse than prostitution, because at least there, though vilely sinful, at least it is an act according to nature. He calls it worse than murder; for the murderer severs the body from the soul, but this man "ruins the soul with the body." The man does not become a woman, he loses his manhood and becomes a traitor to both sexes, "deserving both of men and women to be driven out and stoned, as having wronged either sex." If someone assured you that he could actually turn you into a dog, you would run for the hills. This is worse. At least a dog is good for something - this man is good for nothing. "Consider how great this sin is, to have forced Hell to appear even before its time!" 

With all the fascination many churches seem to have with sermons and serieses of sermons about sex, somehow I don't anticipate anyone preaching like Chysostom any time soon.

The Uncharitable Charity of the Unsaved

Title: The Uncharitable “Charity” of the Unsaved
Text: Acts 5:1-11

Thesis Statement: Even the most philanthropic act of an unbeliever is an abhorrent attempt to pervert Divine justice and buy God’s favor and should not be admired by Christians.

Interrogative: Were Ananias and Sapphira really Christians? What was their sin? How did God view their act? Why were they punished with such apparent severity? These are the questions we will be addressing in our message today. But, first things first, let’s get a bit of background information on this whole episode.

The Jerusalem Church had such a spirit of camaraderie and brotherhood that they were literally, “spending and being spent,” for each other. The believers, we are told, did not value their personal property as private possessions. Rather, they viewed their own goods as for the public good. By “public,” of course, I mean the Church. People who owned parcels of land began selling them and placing the proceeds at the “apostles’ feet,” – that is, at their disposal. Four things should be said about this:

First of all, there was no compulsion to do so. This selling of property is represented as being entirely voluntary. The Apostles didn’t order the Jerusalem Christians to sell their possessions and pool their resources. This was not an organized procedure.

Secondly, it wasn’t communism. That is to say, all the believers weren’t placed on equal social footing. Nowhere are we told that all of the believers in Jerusalem unconditionally sold everything they owned. This didn’t happen in Jerusalem, nor did it happen anywhere else.

Thirdly, there is no evidence here that the whole Jerusalem Church lived in any sort of commune. There are Christian organizations today that practice a communal lifestyle, which they claim follows the example set by the early church. Laudable as their intentions may be, it is difficult to prove this from Scripture.

Finally, this sharing of each other’s goods was not a failure. Some of the Liberal Theologians have made this out to be a failed experiment, which, they say, is why Paul had to later take up collections everywhere for the poor saints in Jerusalem. This is simply false. We have already pointed out that this wasn’t an organized procedure – so how could it have been a failure? The poverty of the saints that Paul wished to alleviate was the result of civil and religious persecution, not the result of unrestrained zeal. Those who assert this seem to be simply creating an excuse for modern Christianity’s appalling lack of generosity. This is not an unfounded charge. The ranks of Christendom are filled with millionaires and multi-millionaires who have no qualms whatsoever about the fact that they have brethren around the world living in abject poverty.

Now, to return to the story. Among the believers who sold land to donate the proceeds to the Church was a Levite named Joseph, a Cypriot. The Apostles nicknamed him Barnabas, and it’s by this name that he’s familiar to most of us. The name Barnabas means, “son of encouragement.” He may have been given this name as a result of his generosity, since it is in connection with this fact that his name is first mentioned. Ananias and Sapphira were obviously envious of this sort of adulation. They heard the sort of things that were being said about Barnabas and others, and they desired to be publicly revered and honored too. This then, gets us to our passage today. I will now answer the questions we posed earlier.

Were they believers, i.e., true Christians?

I. They were not believers.

Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we use words correctly. The word Christian is so casually bandied about these days that it has really little, if any, meaning to the minds of most people. If by Christian you mean that you were born in a so-called “Christian country,” then even the neighborhood cats, dogs and rats are “Christians.” But if by Christian you mean a person who has exercised saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, resting on His merit alone, then these people were most definitely NOT Christians!

How did I determine that? There are several lines of approach to prove this. Let me say first of all that it’s not my Reformed theology that has forced me into this opinion. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that that is why I think this. I think I’m on good Scriptural ground in doing so. As a believer in the Calvinistic, or better yet, Pauline scheme of doctrine, I obviously affirm the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. I won’t digress into a defense of this doctrine since it isn’t my main line of evidence. But suffice it to say that I am unshakably convinced that salvation cannot be lost. Now, if God killed these people in their sin, it goes without saying that they were not saved – they were not preserved until the end. But for those of you who think that your salvation depends upon your own faithful efforts, this reasoning may not convince you. In fact, you may even find here a proof that salvation can be lost – that Christians can cross the line and fall finally away from grace.

However I do not even need to appeal to anything outside our text to substantiate my claim that they weren’t, then or ever, true believers. First of all, the text opens with the word, “But.” This is supposed to indicate a distinction between Ananias and Sapphira’s act with that of Barnabas. Secondly, they are simply introduced as, “a certain man…and his wife.” This is meant to set them in contrast to the “multitude of them that believed” (δε πληθους των πιστευσαντων). Obviously Luke does not wish them to be mistaken as part of that company. Thirdly, Luke informs us that Ananias’ heart was, “filled by Satan.” (επληρωσεν ο σατανας την καρδιαν σου). The Greek word here meaning filled is the exact same word used of the disciples when they were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. While we're on the subject, this is essentially the same thing said of Judas Iscariot (John 13:27). A believer’s heart cannot be filled by Satan because it is the abode of the Holy Spirit. God is a jealous God; He will not share the heart of His child with anyone, let alone Satan! Fourthly, they conspired together to put God to the test, clearly a Satanically inspired act (Luke 4:12). The word Luke uses to describe their action is: συνεφωνηθη. It contains the prefix “syn,” which, like its English counterpart indicates agreement or participation between two or more parties. The point I wish to make is that neither of them was merely led along by the other. They colluded together to commit this act of deception. So, I would assert that it is an unreasonable “leap of faith” to imagine that they were believers. It is even unwarranted to assume that they even attended church. Nowhere in the text are we told that they were members of the church. The Christians were always referred to as “disciples.” Luke denies them this title as well. Luke has gone to great lengths to show us that they were not true believers. In fact, to think that they were is to miss the whole point of the story. For all we know they could have been running the local “numbers” racket. The fact that premeditated deception seemed so natural to them – as a couple – is surely intended by both Luke and the Holy Spirit to tell us something about their character. The Roman satirist Juvenal said, “No one ever became degenerate overnight.” We may not be able to say much about them with any kind of certainty, but we can be sure that this was not the first time they had tried to pass themselves off as something they weren’t. Fifthly, Simon the Sorcerer – without doubt an unbeliever – was another “certain man” who sought, by more blatant means perhaps, to buy repute with God, showing that this kind of behavior is clearly that of unbelievers.

Finally, this story has a somewhat parallel passage in Ezekiel 11 where God kills a man while Ezekiel is prophesying. In the introduction to the event, God personally labels the man he killed as a man that “devise[s] mischief, and give[s] wicked counsel.” Obviously, God operates on the same principle of justice with regard to everyone: He is no respecter of persons. He didn’t kill believers in the Old Testament; He didn’t kill believers in the New Testament either. On these grounds alone we have put it beyond all question that they were most definitely NOT believers.

For those who would assert that Ananias and Sapphira were Christians, I would ask on what grounds this assumption is based. You may say, “They were at the church and they were giving a large sum of money.” My question for you then is, “Is that what makes a person a Christian?” Salvation cannot be bought. No one will argue with that statement. But some of you would take church attendance and giving as reliable indicators that a person is a true believer. If you for a second harbor the slightest belief that this couple were true Christians, you need to re-assess what you think a Christian is.

I heard an old country preacher tell the story of a man who died and went to the gates of heaven, trying to get in. He was met by Peter, who asked his name. After failing to find the man’s name in the Book of Life, Peter told the man, “Your name’s not in the Book. I’m sorry, but you cannot enter.” The man was outraged. He asked, “Who’s in charge here? Where’s your boss? I gave $20 in the offering at church last night. How can you tell me I can’t come in?” Peter got tired of arguing with the man and went report the problem. He told the angel in charge of accounts, “Look. There’s a man at the gate whose name isn’t in the Book. I told him that he can’t come in. He keeps insisting that we have to let him in because he gave $20 at church last night.” The angel reached into the cash drawer, pulled out $20, gave it Peter and said, “Here. Give him his money back and tell him to go to hell.” Obviously, not an appropriate illustration for every context, but it does make the point.

II. Now, let’s look at what their sin was. But first let’s see what it was not.

Their sin was NOT the giving of only a part of the proceeds from the sale of their property. At first glance one might think that, but Peter’s comments in verse 4 put this idea out. Peter says explicitly that as the owners of the land they were under no obligation to do anything they didn’t want to do. If they had decided not to sell their land and not give anything to the church, that was fine. The land was theirs; the money was theirs – it was under their power. The Greek word in this passage is εξουσια, which does mean power, but not in the miraculous sense, but in the sense of authority. There was no Communist-like compulsion in the Jerusalem Church to sell everything and put it all at the Apostles’ disposal. Many were doing so, but not because they had to. So we want to make it clear: their sin was not that they didn’t give the whole sale price of their property.

So then, what was their sin (or sins)? First of all, they wanted to be considered distinguished disciples, when they were really not true disciples. Their “philanthropy” was really just a camouflaged form of self-promotion. Secondly, they were covetous and distrustful of God and His providence. How can we tell? They loved their money, and thought it was too much to part with at once, and to trust in the apostles' hands. They couldn’t be certain that they might not need it themselves. Having “all things in common” was a commitment they were not willing to make. They were willing to fake it, but not make it. Thirdly, they attempted to deceive the apostles, and make them believe they brought the whole purchase-money, when really it was but a part.

Real “charity,” that is, almsgiving to the poor, is a beautiful, virtuous act. But, as Calvin notes on this passage, the sacrifices of the ungodly are an abomination to God (Proverbs 15:8). God is not pleased where singleness of heart is lacking. This is why Christ made more account of the two mites offered by the widow than the great sums of money given by others, who of their great riches gave some part (Luke 21:2).

Now let’s bring these points to our own times. The sports and entertainment industries gather several times a year at various functions to hand out awards and accolades in public honor of the “charity” and advocacy of the actors, singers and athletes. (They have received their reward!) But we shouldn’t be impressed by their so-called generosity. So what if Tiger Woods gives $1,000,000 to some charitable organization? He makes that much every time he ties his shoes! Besides the fact that they are “giving out of their abundance,” God isn’t swayed or impressed in the least. These acts don’t spring from true Gospel faith and therefore they are sin. Sin is anything that displeases God. Without faith you can't please God. If you don't have faith everything you do is sin, because everything you do displeases God.

It is for this reason that I have always, to the chagrin of many fellow pastors, refused to get caught up in the adoration of people like Mother Theresa. This woman, as friendly as she may have been, publicly and firmly advocated veneration of Mary and the saints – like any other idolatrous Roman Catholic. These are not the fruits of Gospel faith – they are explicitly at enmity with the revealed will of God! This is not to say that some people weren’t fed and some lepers didn’t benefit. But all this “humanitarian” work is of no account for Mother Theresa! It wasn’t the result of Gospel faith and was therefore SIN! I could multiply my examples; believe me. C.S. Lewis says somewhere that our age seems to have reduced all virtue to “being nice.” We therefore excuse all our selfishness and immorality simply on the grounds that we are “humane.” At the end of our lives, if people can say of us, “He was a nice guy,” then we seem to think that all is forgiven and God can’t possibly demand any more of us. Lewis asks if we think God should we be as quick to overlook the cruelty and brutality of the barbarian ages simply because they excelled in chastity? People may publicly claim that their works of generosity are done out of pity and concern for suffering humanity, but if we take God’s assessment of the human heart seriously – take Genesis 6:5, for instance – we must affirm that privately, perhaps even subconsciously, their true motivation is not as altruistic as they claim. Genesis 6:5 says that every thought of man’s heart is evil – continuously. If this is true, how can there not be vile and corrupt motives behind these “good deeds?”

I remember some of my former co-workers who used to dream about winning the lottery. They would try to mask their greed by saying that if they won they’d give millions of dollars to the, “starving children of Madagascar.” – or something similar. But they were some of the most stingy, unloving people I have ever met. I used to think to myself, “You won’t even give me the time of day, and I’m supposed to believe that you would give millions to some people you don’t even know!” Then they credited to themselves the merit of an unparalleled generosity simply because they said that they would help the needy – if they only had millions of dollars. In reality though, they had never done anything to help anyone, let alone some needy person. If a beggar had come to their house while they were eating dinner and asked for food, they’d have called the police. But they were quick as lightning to credit to themselves the merit of deeds they had never done and never would do.

Some of the great philanthropists were known to be quite different in private with their families and employees than they were in public. Andrew Carnegie, the billionaire steel tycoon, donated millions and millions of dollars to build public libraries all over America. He donated the money for the library in my hometown of Aurora, Illinois. Countless Aurorans, myself included, have benefited from his donation. But Carnegie hasn’t! His own employees knew him to be a hard, demanding and unreasonable boss. Yet he created a worldwide image of himself as a great “lover of mankind” – How? By hypocrisy, by acting differently in public that he did in private. Others may have benefited from his so-called philanthropy; he didn’t. You know this word, “philanthropy,” literally means “lover of man.” It is a bit of a misnomer, in my opinion. It is “love of man” if we clarify that the man being loved may be the giver himself!

Now you may be a bit shocked and maybe even upset with me for “attacking” someone like Mother Theresa. But I must insist that people were mistaken in making her out to be a paragon of Christian virtue. Look. If we let her off the hook for her idolatry, then we are honor-bound to do the same thing for all the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who are engaged in “charitable” causes as well. And incidentally, we have inadvertently admitted that we really believe that salvation can be earned by works. If you say, “Do you mean to tell me that you honestly believe that a woman like Mother Theresa, who gave up so much of her life to help the poor lepers of Calcutta did not go to heaven?” I would in turn ask you, “Do you mean to tell me that you believe that you can cast aside the Second Commandment and bow before images and still get to heaven as long as you engage in some sort of apparent self-sacrifice?” Salvation is not for sale! God is not fooled by these things and we shouldn’t be either. If you do not love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and might, it does not matter that you “love” your neighbor as your self. Underneath the exterior of generosity, self-sacrifice and concern for others lies pure, unmixed self-love, self-promotion and self-righteousness. If that sounds too hard or unfair, all I can say is, “That is Almighty God’s judgment.” Whether we like it or not, that’s the way it is and it’s foolish to act otherwise.

III. How did God view the act?

God viewed it as a test. Deuteronomy 6:13 expressly forbids putting God to the test. Before we go on, perhaps we should clarify what exactly it means to put God to the test. Based on Jesus’ interpretation of this verse in His Temptation and this passage we may safely say that it is an attempt to pervert Divine justice and/or to obligate God into disregarding His revealed will. That’s why I took such a hard-line position regarding Mother Theresa. God cannot and will not be bought off of the Second Commandment because we dedicate our lives to helping the poor. God justifies the ungodly only on the grounds of faith alone – sola fide. Acts of apparent faith or sacrifice do not obligate God to disregard His revealed will! He will not receive, honor or even recognize the good deeds of the unsaved. Good fruit does not come from bad trees. The sacrifices of the ungodly are an abomination to God!

Try as they might, they could not deceive the Holy Spirit. Proverbs tells us of the value of a good name, but you cannot buy a good reputation in the Kingdom of God. People may be able to “get ahead” in this world by lying, cheating and fraud. But these principles are foreign to the nature of God and His Kingdom, and He reacts with fury toward those who wish to infiltrate His holy realm with such base actions. If you work for some high-paying international company, you may be able to use your “connections” to help a friend or relative get a job there too. If you are a politician, you may be able to ensure that every one of your friends and family benefits from your position. But such tactics do not work in God’s economy. And I wouldn’t recommend that you try!

IV Why the severity of the judgment?

We aren’t told how Sapphira remained ignorant of her husband’s death for so long. It is a most surprising circumstance, though. Ananias died suddenly – in a very shocking way, I might add. The event had excited everybody. He had even been buried already. Yet, she, who must have been in the vicinity, with absolutely no idea of what had occurred, enters the very place where it happened without a word of it reaching her. Quite amazing! One commentator says that there is, “no way to account for this, but by the supposition that there was a concerted determination on the part of the whole multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a most unnatural determination, and one difficult of execution, except on the further supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to restrain their natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he himself was ready to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in order to effectually expose her.” I’m not sure that this is the best explanation, but I certainly can’t think of anything better.

It is pretty powerful to realize though, that she only found out her husband’s death as her own death was being pronounced. It is also very noteworthy that there is absolutely no recorded comment, feeling or idea on the part of Peter and the Apostles regarding the judgment. It doesn’t seem as if it were merely passé, or simply expected, but they don’t seem particularly shocked either – unless, of course, if by saying that fear came upon the whole church, Luke meant the Apostles as well.

Was the judgment too severe? The correctness of the judgment can be best appreciated by considering what would’ve happened if Ananias and Sapphira had succeeded in their little scheme. Their success would’ve turned the most praiseworthy feature of the new Church into a source of dishonesty and hypocrisy. But it would’ve also brought discredit upon the inspiration of the apostles by showing that the Spirit within them could be deceived. As a result the whole fabric of apostolic authority, which was based upon their inspiration, would have been ruined. Therefore, their attempt presented a crisis of vital importance, and demanded some kind of a vindication of their inspiration that could not be mistaken or forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was exactly the desired effect: "great fear came upon all who heard these things." If we would ask why others who do the same aren’t punished, I would reply with the words of John Chrysostom, the “golden-mouthed” preacher of the 4th Century: “They are reserved for greater punishment.”

Conclusion:

Do we know what we are asking for when we say that we want to see God’s power moving in our churches? Do we really want to have this purifying dunamiv in our midst? Would you like for that unsaved businessman who has promised to donate money for your building project to drop dead in your church? Are you trying to pass yourself off as more generous and kind than you really are? Are you trying to bribe God with your “generosity?” Let the passage we have read today be a lesson to you. God is not impressed with donations. God cannot be bought off of His Word by your good deeds. He will not alter a single letter of His Word because you are such a “nice person.”