Editor’s Note: This post is part of our series, ‘Satan’s Lies: Common Deceptions in the Church Today’…

The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is one that often leaves readers baffled. A husband and wife sell some property, bring part of the proceeds to the apostles, but claim they’re donating the full amount—and both instantly fall dead when their deception is exposed. As the account unfolds, we can’t help but wonder: Was this divine punishment disproportionate to their offense? Haven’t we all lied at some point? Why have we been spared such a fate?

To understand this challenging passage from a Reformed perspective, we need to look beyond our initial discomfort and examine God’s sovereignty, holiness, and the unique context of the early church.

 

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT MATTERS

The events of Acts 5 occurred at a pivotal moment in church history. The Holy Spirit had recently descended at Pentecost, empowering the apostles and establishing the first community of believers. This wasn’t just any group of people—this was the foundation of Christ’s church being established on earth.

Acts 4:32-37 describes this early church as having “one heart and mind,” with believers sharing everything they owned. No one claimed private ownership; instead, they brought their resources to the apostles for distribution according to need. This radical unity and generosity formed a powerful witness to the resurrection of Jesus.

Just before the Ananias and Sapphira incident, we read about Barnabas, who sold a field and brought the money to the apostles. His genuine sacrifice stood in stark contrast to what was about to unfold.

 

THE NATURE OF THE SIN

What Ananias and Sapphira committed wasn’t merely a white lie or minor deception. Their sin was a deliberate conspiracy, carefully planned between husband and wife. Peter’s confrontation makes this clear: “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?” (Acts 5:3).

The Reformed tradition has long emphasised the severity of their transgression. They weren’t simply lying to the apostles or the church community—they were attempting to deceive God Himself. Peter explicitly states, “You have not lied just to human beings but to God” (v. 4).

Their motivation appears to have been securing spiritual acclaim while maintaining financial security—wanting the recognition of sacrificial giving without the actual sacrifice. This form of religious hypocrisy struck at the very heart of Christian integrity.

 

GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND JUSTICE

God’s absolute sovereignty is central to understanding this account. The Reformed tradition has always maintained that God has the right to judge sin as He sees fit, according to His perfect wisdom and justice.

Throughout Scripture, we find other examples of immediate divine judgement: Nadab and Abihu were consumed by fire when they offered “unauthorised fire” before the Lord (Leviticus 10); Achan and his family were executed after he took forbidden plunder from Jericho (Joshua 7). These instances remind us God, being perfectly holy, sometimes acts in immediate judgement rather than extended patience.

Reformed theology teaches God’s purposes extend beyond the individuals involved. His judgements serve broader purposes in His redemptive plan—in this case, protecting the purity and mission of the early church at its foundation.

 

PROTECTION OF THE EARLY CHURCH

Why such severe judgement at this particular moment? The early church represented the beginning of God’s new covenant community. Corruption at its foundation posed an existential threat to its witness and mission.

Acts 5:11 records the effect of this judgement: “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.” This holy fear served a protective function, establishing the seriousness of integrity before God and safeguarding the church’s foundation.

The Reformed tradition sees God’s action here not as arbitrary harshness but as loving protection of His church. Just as a surgeon must cut out cancer to save a patient, God acted decisively to prevent the cancer of hypocrisy from spreading through the early church.

 

GRACE AND JUDGEMENT TODAY

A common question follows: If God struck down Ananias and Sapphira, why doesn’t He respond the same way to every instance of deception in the church today? The Reformed understanding acknowledges God’s discipline continues but often takes different forms in different dispensations of His redemptive plan.

Hebrews 12:5-11 reminds us God disciplines those He loves. This discipline may come through consequences, conviction, church accountability, or other means. The absence of immediate, dramatic judgement doesn’t indicate God’s approval or indifference to sin. Nor does it indicate God has let the sinner go scot-free. After all, the great judgement is yet to happen.

The Reformed tradition emphasises we live in an age of grace made possible through Christ’s sacrifice. Yet this grace should never be taken as license to sin. As Paul writes, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” (Romans 6:1-2).

 

APPLICATIONS FOR BELIEVERS TODAY

The account of Ananias and Sapphira offers several important applications:

• It calls us to integrity and truthfulness as foundational Christian virtues. Our yes should be yes, and our no should be no (Matthew 5:37). God sees not just our public actions but our private motivations.
• It warns against religious hypocrisy—appearing more spiritual than we truly are. The Reformed tradition has always emphasised heart transformation over external conformity.
• It restores a proper understanding of the fear of the Lord. This isn’t mere terror but a reverent awareness that we serve a holy God who takes sin seriously. As Calvin wrote, “It is right that the majesty of the Spirit should be vindicated by a terrible example against such sacrilege.” Calvin’s insight calls us to reflect deeply on the majesty and holiness of God.
• It should produce gratitude for God’s patience and mercy in Christ. We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, yet He extends grace to us through His Son’s sacrifice.

 

CONCLUSION: ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA

Was God too harsh with Ananias and Sapphira? From a Reformed perspective, the answer must be no. God’s judgement was both just and purposeful—just because their sin was a direct challenge to His holiness, and purposeful because it protected the integrity of the early church.

The Reformed understanding balances a sober recognition of God’s sovereignty in discipline with a grateful reception of His grace in Christ. This balance produces both godly fear and confident trust.

Rather than questioning God’s justice in this account, perhaps we should instead marvel at His patience with us. As we consider Ananias and Sapphira, the appropriate response isn’t to accuse God of harshness but to examine our own hearts, repent of our own deceptions, and live in genuine faith before a holy God who sees all.

 

ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA: RELATED FAQs

Will Ananias and Sapphira go to hell for their lie? From a Reformed perspective, we cannot definitively determine their eternal destiny based solely on this passage. Their sudden death represents temporal judgement, not necessarily eternal condemnation. If they were truly among God’s elect, their sin—while deserving severe earthly consequences—would not negate Christ’s atonement for them. Some Reformed theologians point to 1 Corinthians 5:5 as a parallel, where Paul delivers a sinning believer to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved.”

• How does this story relate to the doctrine of perseverance of saints? The doctrine of the perseverance of saints doesn’t promise freedom from consequences but assures believers God will complete His work in them—sometimes through severe discipline. This account indicates true perseverance includes God’s correction, as Hebrews 12:6 states, “The Lord disciplines the one he loves.” From a Reformed perspective, Ananias and Sapphira may have been false professors who never truly believed, genuine believers who received severe discipline, or an example of God removing believers from this life rather than allowing continued serious sin.
• If they were believers, shouldn’t their justification cover their past, present, and future sins? Justification does cover all sins eternally, but doesn’t exempt believers from temporal discipline. Reformed theology distinguishes between sin’s eternal penalty (removed by justification) and its temporal effects (which may remain as discipline). David was forgiven for his sin with Bathsheba but still faced severe consequences (2 Samuel 12:13-14). Ananias and Sapphira’s story demonstrates that God’s forgiveness doesn’t always remove earthly consequences, which can be severe when sin threatens the church’s foundation.

Isn’t this story sufficient reason to reject Calvinism? Some critics suggest the Ananias and Sapphira account undermines Calvinism, arguing a sovereign God who predestines all things would be unjust to punish what He ordained. However, Reformed theology has always maintained God’s sovereignty doesn’t negate human responsibility. Compatibilism—the view that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible—is fundamental to Reformed thought. God sovereignly works through secondary causes, including human choices, without removing responsibility for those choices.

Rather than undermining Calvinism, this account actually aligns with its emphasis on God’s holiness, justice, and sovereignty over all events. The Reformed tradition has consistently maintained that God has the right to judge sin while simultaneously accomplishing His purposes through it—a mystery acknowledged in passages like Acts 2:23, where Christ’s crucifixion is described as both according to “God’s deliberate plan” and carried out by “wicked men.”

• Could Satan have forced Ananias and Sapphira to lie? Reformed theology rejects the notion Satan can force believers to sin against their will. While Satan can tempt and influence, responsibility remains with the individual, as James 1:14 states, “each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire.” Ananias and Sapphira yielded to Satan’s influence but made their own decision to deceive. The mention of Satan highlights the spiritual battle occurring in the early church without diminishing their responsibility.
• Does this mean church leaders today should expect similar power to pronounce judgement? Peter didn’t actually pronounce a death sentence—he simply exposed the deception, and God executed judgement directly. Reformed theology maintains that church leaders have authority to exercise church discipline, but not in the same miraculous manner seen in Acts 5. The apostles had a unique foundational role confirmed by signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 12:12). Today’s church discipline should follow biblical patterns of confrontation, repentance, and restoration, with excommunication as a last resort—not physical punishment.

Does this story imply Christians must give all their possessions to the church? Ananias and Sapphira weren’t condemned for keeping some money but for deception about their generosity. Peter explicitly stated, “Wasn’t the money at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4). Reformed theology generally affirms private property rights while emphasizing stewardship and generosity. The early Jerusalem church’s communal sharing represented a Spirit-led response to particular circumstances, not a timeless economic model. Their sin was counterfeiting spirituality for social acclaim, not insufficient giving.

 

ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA: OUR RELATED POSTS

• Why Did God Punish Lot’s Wife? What Was Her Sin?
• Why Did God Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? The Full Story
• Why Was Touching the Ark of God a Fatal Mistake?