The notion of private property is not a modern, capitalist, Bourgeois notion. It is a natural, creational truth. It is a basic part of the natural, creational pattern (Luke 17:28). This is why Peter says what he does to Ananias and Sapphira. He was not instituting private property, he was assuming it. It was a given. Christians are free to sell assets in order to help their brothers and sister but that very act assumes private property.

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband (Acts 4:32–5:10; NASB95).

The point of this narrative is, as my pastor Chris Gordon recently noted, to illustrate hypocrisy in contrast with true faith. We see evidence of true faith in Acts 4:32–37, in Joseph (or Barnabas), the Cyprian Levite, who, seeing the need among his brothers and sisters, sold some of his property in order to be able to minister to his needs. One of my professors, Derke Bergsma, used to remind us that the Levites had a diaconal ministry among the Jews and we see evidence of that here. Ananias and Sapphira, on the other hand, tried to create the impression that they had done more than they really had. Contra the Marcionite view of redemptive history, which posits a strict Old Testament God in contrast to a New Testament God of pure love, here we see that God has not changed one whit since he caused the ground to open and swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16; 26:10). God is utterly holy and righteous.

As we were meditating on this passage, however, I was struck by a feature of the passage that may be overlooked: private property. It is understandable that we might miss this feature. After all, it is not every day that we see the Holy Spirit in the New Testament ministry, putting to death members of the visible church but there it is. Peter’s indictment, however, rests on the premise that the property Joseph, Ananias, and Sapphira sold belonged to them. There was a moment when it was not the common property of the church. It was private property. It only became the common property of the church after it was sold and donated. Further, that selling and donating was voluntary. The state is nowhere involved in this process. Luke never imagines nor does the narrative say anything about publicly held property administered by the civil magistrate. Thus, when Christians invoke this passage to justify any sort of Socialism, the public ownership of the means of production, or the absence of private property, such an interpretation is irresponsible and utterly groundless. Relative to the civil magistrate, the entire transaction may be said to have been private.

Read More