Remembering God's Faithfulness

                            Sunday School Lesson

                                            

Lesson: Acts 7:2-4, 8-10, 17, 33-34, 45-47, 52-53, 55
                                                                                                 
Golden Text: “But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55).
I.  INTRODUCTION.  Many churches today still have testimony times during their church services. Very often in these services, believers give testimony of how God has been faithful to them in answering their prayers and meeting their needs.  One reason why we enjoy testimony services is because hearing how God has worked in someone else’s life reminds us that God will be faithful in our lives too.  In this week’s lesson we find Stephen testifying to God’s faithfulness to the people of Israel.  Even though his listeners weren’t receptive to his message, his testimony still reminds us of God’s faithfulness in our lives. 
II. BACKGROUND FOR THE LESSON.  After the second persecution suffered by the apostles which concluded with them being beaten and commanded not to preach anymore in the name of Jesus (see Acts 4:27-28,34-35, 38-40), the number of believers grew too large for the apostles to minister to all of them effectively.  They instructed the believers to choose men to help them in their work, which we call deacons (see Acts 6:1-7).  Stephen was one of those chosen being “full of faith and power” (see Acts 6:8).  He was totally committed to Christ and therefore a vessel through whom the power of God could flow.  We find him doing “great wonders and miracles among the people (see Acts 6:8).  Since he was faithful in the modest task of food distribution, Stephen was now entrusted with a wider ministry.  God was enabling him to perform works like those of the apostles and of Jesus as well.  The miracles Stephen performed gave accreditation to his message.  On one occasion he disputed with other Hellenistic Jews in the synagogue (see Acts 6:9).  These were Greek speaking Jews who had lived elsewhere in the Roman world but had now returned to Jerusalem.  These Jews debated Stephen, but “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (see Acts 6:10).  Since they couldn’t get the best of Stephen in honest debate, his opponents resorted to underhanded methods.  They found men willing to make false statements and accusations against Stephen, bringing him before the Sanhedrin Council accusing him of blasphemy against Moses and God (see Acts 6:11-14).  Therefore, Stephen had to defend himself against the charge that “this man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place (a reference to either the temple or Jerusalem, but most likely the temple) and the law” (see Acts 6:13).  While he stood before the Council, Luke tells us that when all of the council members looked at Stephen, his face looked as if it was the face of an angel (see Acts 6:15).  At this point, the high priest asked him if the things that he was accused of were true (see Acts 7:1).  What follows including our lesson text is Stephen’s defense, the longest of seven recorded speeches or sermons in the book of Acts.  Our lesson begins with Acts 7:2.
III. THE CALL OF ABRAHAM (Acts 7:2-4, 8).  As Stephen defended himself against the false charges of blasphemy, his address was not really a defense of himself or an argument against the charges.  It was more a declaration of God’s historical dealings with Israel proving His faithfulnes.  First, he wanted to show that God had dealt with Israel in different ways and therefore He shouldn’t be limited to only what they were familiar with.  Second Stephen wanted to show that it wasn’t necessary to worship God in the temple or Jerusalem in order to receive His blessings.  Third, his defense would reveal the hypocrisy of the Jewish nation---a nation that always resisted God-sent leaders and prophets.  Stephen hoped that as he defended himself, his words would awaken these current spiritual leaders to their sin of rejecting the prophets, especially the Messiah, Jesus Christ.  
A. God reveals Himself to Abraham (Acts 7:2).  Our first verse says “And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.”  Stephen began his defense by answering in a formal yet respectful fashion.  He said to the Council “Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken.”  With the words “Men, brethren, and fathers,” Stephen was giving due respect to the national leaders on the Council.  These were not flattering titles, but civil and respectful ones, indicating that he expected them to treat him fairly, with humanity, and in a brotherly fatherly way.  But they are ready to see him as both an enemy of Judaism, and an enemy to the Sanhedrin Council, the Jewish leaders.  But he addresses them as “Men, brethren, and fathers” hoping that they will look on him as one of them.  He called on the council members to “harken” which was an appeal for them to listen carefully to what he was about to say.  They might not agree with some of his words, but he pleaded with them to hear him out.  Stephen continued to say “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.”  Stephen began his historical defense with the call of Abraham, who was the father of the Jewish nation.  He reminded the Council that God “appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.”  In other words, God first appeared to Abraham in his idolatrous native land of “Mesopotamia” also known as Babylonia and Chaldea (see Genesis 11:27-30).   “Mesopotamia” was the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and God spoke to Abraham there “before he dwelt in Charran.”  God was leading Abraham to Canaan, the land of promise.  However, on his way to Canaan, Abraham and his small family stopped in “Charran” or Haran (see Genesis 11:31).
B. God relocates Abraham (Acts 7:3-4).  
1. (vs. 3).  Still referring to God’s call of Abraham, in this verse Stephen said “And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.”  The words “thy country” refers to “Charran” or Haran which was also in Mesopotamia about 600 miles from Ur of the Chaldees.  God told Abraham to leave “thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.”   He was to leave his “kindred” or family and continue on with his small immediate family to Canaan, “the land which I (God) shall shew thee.”
2. (vs. 4).  This verse says “Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.”  After Terah, Abraham’s father moved his family from Ur of the Chaldees, they travelled about 600 miles and “dwelt in Charran” or Haran.  Stephen also told the Council that after Abraham’s father died, God “removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.”   In other words, Stephen told them that Abraham moved his small family from Haran to Israel where “ye (the Jews) now dwell.”
C. God makes a covenant with Abraham (Acts 7:8).  In this verse, Stephen continued to say “And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.”  After Abraham had been in Canaan for about 25 years (see Genesis 12:4-5; 17:1-3), God “gave him (Abraham) the covenant of circumcision” that is, the covenant of which circumcision was the sign (see Genesis 17:1-14); and accordingly, when Abraham “begat Isaac” or had a son named Isaac, he “circumcised him the eighth day.”Stephen went on to give the names of Abraham’s descendents who became the forefathers of the nation of Israel.  First, he said “so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day.”  Abraham obeyed God’s covenant and circumcised Isaac eight days after his birth.  Then Stephen said “and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.”  Isaac was Jacob’s son and Jacob was the father of the “twelve patriarchs” who became heads of the twelve tribes of Israel.       

IV. THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST JOSEPH (Acts 7:9-10)      

A. Joseph’s brothers motivated by jealousy (Acts 7:9).  In this verse, Stephen reminds the Council of what happened to Joseph.  He said “And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him.”  Joseph was Jacob’s favorite son as seen in the coat of many colors he was given by his father (see Genesis 37:3).  The word “patriarchs” refers to Joseph’s brothers.   As so often is the case, Joseph’s brothers were “moved with envy” meaning they became jealous and began to hate Joseph (see Genesis 37:4).  “Envy” or jealousy is sin and can make us do some evil an unrighteous things (see Proverbs 6:34; Song of Solomon 8:6; Mark 15:10; Acts 13:45; 17:5; Romans 1:29; Philippians 1:15; Titus 3:3).  As a result of their “envy” or jealousy, these brothers “sold Joseph into Egypt.”  At first, they wanted to kill him, but his brother Reuben talked them out it (see Genesis 37:20-21).  They agreed to sell him to some travelling merchants from Midian who in turn brought Joseph into Egypt (see Genesis 37:23-28).  But though all of this, Stephen said “God was with him.”  Of course the record shows that in Egypt Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife, unjustly put in prison, and forgotten by Pharaoh’s butler (see Genesis chapters 39 and 40).  But Joseph was delivered from these trials as well because “God was with him.” It appears that the point Stephen was trying to make here is the same as with Abraham: God was with Joseph everywhere he went and most of the time it was outside of the land of Israel.
B. God delivers Joseph (Acts 7:10).  Still talking about Joseph and his troubles, Stephen said in this verse “And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.”  Not only did God deliver Joseph “out of all his afflictions,” He also “gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”  God owned Joseph in his troubles.  He was with him (see Genesis 39:2, 21) by the influence of his Spirit, both on his mind, and on the minds of those Joseph was concerned with.  God gave him “favour and wisdom” in their eyes.   In addition, the Lord “made him governor over Egypt and all his house.”   Since God was with Joseph through all of his afflictions or troubles, Pharaoh made him the second man in authority in his kingdom (see Psalms 105:17-22). 
V. THE COMMISSION OF MOSES (Acts 7:17, 33-34)
A. God’s promise (Acts 7:17).  This verse says “But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.”  In this verse Stephen reminds his listeners of the time when God was preparing to call His people out of Egyptian bondage.  This happened “when the time of the promise drew nigh” meaning when God had determined that it was time to keep His covenant promise to Abraham and set His people free so that they could go to Canaan.  It was during this time that God’s “people grew and multiplied in Egypt.”
B. God’s proposal to Moses (Acts 7:33-34). 
1. (vs. 33).  In this verse Stephen still talking about Moses (see Acts 7:20-32) said “Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.”  The Lord spoke to Moses from a burning bush while he was tending his father-in-law’s sheep (see Exodus 3:1-6).  Once again, Stephan was showing that God was working outside of Israel.  The Lord told Moses to “Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.”  The Sanhedrin Council was charging Stephen with blaspheming, or speaking against the temple which they described as “this holy place” (see Acts 6:13) as if the temple was the only holy place.  When Stephen repeated God’s words to Moses, he was showing that any place where God reveals Himself is holy.
2. (vs. 34).  In this verse Stephen said God continued to say to Moses “I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.”  God’s people had been in Egypt for 432 years (see Exodus 12:40), and finally after all this time God told Moses that He had seen their “affliction” or bondage, and “heard their groaning” or their cries for deliverance.  Now God said that it was time for Him to deliver them.  The phrase “am come down” is an anthropomorphism which means to use human terms to describe God.  Of course, God is all powerful and doesn’t have to come down from heaven to do anything.  For the purpose of man’s understanding, this is how God described what He would do in delivering His people.  Moses was God’s choice to deliver His people and He commissioned Moses for the job saying “And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.”  Of course, after making excuses for why he couldn’t go to Egypt and speak for God (see Exodus 4:1-17), Moses went.  After God brought ten plagues upon Egypt (see Exodus 7:14-25; 8:1-15, 16-32; 9:1-26; 10:1-29; 11:1-12:30), Pharaoh allowed the Hebrews to leave (see Exodus 12:31).
VI. THE COMMAND TO WORSHIP (Acts 7:45-47) 
A. The tabernacle (Acts 7:45-46). 
1. (vs. 45).  In this verse Stephen says “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.”  Stephen was accused of speaking blasphemous words against the temple (see Acts 6:13).  Therefore he turned his attention to that charge as he spoke of the tabernacle that Israel had in the wilderness.  He must convince his accusers that he believed that tabernacle worship was ordained by God
because He had “appointed” Moses to make the tabernacle (see Acts 7:44).  The tabernacle was the visible evidence of God’s presence with His people.  Stephen pointed out in verse 44 which is not part of our printed text, that the tabernacle was not brought into the Promised Land by the same generation that had received it in the wilderness because of unbelief (see Numbers 14:22-25; 32:11-12).  A new generation crossed the Jordan and entered the Promised Land with that tabernacle.  Stephen was referring to this new generation when he said “our fathers that came after.”  They were the ones who “brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers.”  The words “brought in” refer to the tabernacle.  Stephen said it was “brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles.”  Before the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, it was occupied by “Gentiles” meaning people that were non-Jews.  The phrase “brought in with Jesus” should actually say “brought in with Joshua” who led the Jews into the Promised Land that was occupied by non-Jews.  As a Greek speaking Jew, Stephen used “Jesus” here which is the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua.  However, the Hebrew name Joshua should have also been used in place of the name “Jesus” in Hebrews 4:8.  In the last part of this verse, Stephen said that the Gentiles who occupied Canaan when Joshua led them in were those “whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.”  This phrase may be understood in one of two ways.  It may mean that God continued to drive out Israel’s enemies, the Gentile nations, until the time of David.  However, this phrase more likely means that Israel possessed the tabernacle as its place of worship until David’s time, when he desired to build God a permanent structure.  A clearer translation of this verse is: “the tabernacle, under Joshua’s leadership was brought by a new generation of our ancestors, into the Promised Land that was occupied by Gentiles whom God drove out.  That same tabernacle was used by Israel until the time of David.”
2. (vs. 46).  In this verse, Stephen still referring to David said “Who (David) found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.”  David is the subject of this verse.  Stephen first stated that David “found favour before God.”  In other words, God blessed David abundantly and delivered him from his enemies.  It was during David’s reign that Israel enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity unlike any they had ever experienced before.  Second, Stephen said that David “desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.”  Because of David’s relationship with God, he wanted to “find” or build a permanent dwelling place for “the God of Jacob” meaning the God of Israel.  “Jacob” is another name for Israel.
B. The temple (Acts 7:47).  In this verse, Stephen continued to say “But Solomon built him an house.”  As much as David wanted to build God a permanent dwelling place, it was not God’s will that he do it.  For sure, a temple would be built, but David’s son, Solomon would be God’s choice to build it.  This experience of David is recorded in II Samuel chapter 7 and I Chronicles 17:1-15.  As David sat in his own house after God had given him rest from his enemies and Israel enjoyed peace, he determined to build a house for God.  When David told Nathan, the prophet what he wanted to do, at first Nathan encouraged him to do it.  However, later God told Nathan to tell David that he couldn’t build the temple, but his son would (see II Kings 7:1-14).  That’s exactly what happened.  Solomon’s sermon, prayer of dedication and benediction upon the completion of the beautiful temple are all recorded in I Kings chapter 8.  David had been a man of war and had “shed blood abundantly” and therefore was not allowed to build the temple (see I Chronicles 22:8).  However, David did make preparations in advance for Solomon to build the temple (see I Chronicles 22:1-7). 

VII. THE COMING OF CHRIST (Acts 7:52-53, 55)

A. Stephens verdict against the Sanhedrin Council (Acts 7:52-53).  Verse 51 is not part of our printed text, but in that verse, Stephen echoing the words of Jeremiah 6:10; 9:26, charged these Jewish leaders with being “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.”  Stephen was pronouncing his verdict against the Jewish leaders.  They were guilty of resisting the Spirit of God.  Stephen’s accusers had been circumcised physically, but spiritually they were uncircumcised meaning that their hearts were hardened as with a thick covering. 

1. (vs. 52).  In this verse, Stephen asked the members of the Council a question: “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.”  The question was a rhetorical one.  With it, Stephen clearly implied that all the prophets had been persecuted by “your fathers.”  It’s interesting that now Stephen changed from saying “our fathers” in verses 44-45 to “your fathers” in this verse, linking the Sanhedrin Council to those who killed the prophets.  The “prophets,” the very ones who announced “the coming of the Just One” meaning the Messiah, were “slain” or killed by the “fathers” or ancestors of Stephen’s accusers.  Those who announced the greatest blessing upon the nation were killed by the leaders of that nation.  With the phrase “of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers,” Stephen was charging the Sanhedrin with betraying and murdering “the Just One,” Jesus Christ.  The “fathers” or ancestors of the members of the Sanhedrin Council had killed the prophets who announced Christ’s coming; now they were guilty of slaying Christ when He came.
2. (vs. 53).  Still talking to and about the Sanhedrin Council, in this verse Stephen continued to say “Who (the Council) have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”  The pronoun “Who” could refer to the whole nation of Israel, but Stephen was speaking directly to the members of the Council.  He said that they had received “the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”  This means that the members of the Council had not kept or obeyed the very law of God that was given to Moses by the angels.  The phrase “the law by the disposition of angels” refers to the Jewish teaching that angels, as messengers for God, brought the law to Moses (see Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2).  Verse 54 is not part of our printed text, but it says that after hearing Stephen’s defense, the Council members “were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”  In essence, Stephen the defendant, had become the prosecutor for the Sanhedrin Council, and they became furious with him.  This anger would soon lead to Stephen’s stoning and death (see Acts 7:57-59).
B. Stephen’s vision (Acts 7:55).  Stephen was not left to look at the angry faces before him, for our final verse says “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.”  Luke writes that Stephen was “full of the Holy Spirit.”  Being “full of the Holy Spirit” is different from being “filled with the Spirit.”  All genuine believers are permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but the Bible also speaks of many fillings of the Spirit.  The phrase “full of the Holy Spirit” describes a normal, everyday demonstration of the presence of the Holy Ghost in our lives.  Therefore, it means that Stephen was a spiritual man, a mature believer, whose life was characterized by obedience and submission to the Holy Spirit.  This caused him to walk and act in the power of the Spirit consistently.Through the Spirit, Stephen was able to gaze into heaven where he “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.”  This vision encouraged him in this moment of need, and assured him of the bliss that was awaiting him.  The phrase “glory of God” speaks of how God reveals Himself which at one time had been in the shining cloud that filled the tabernacle and later the temple (see Exodus 40:34-35; I Kings 8:10-11).  Stephen said that he saw “Jesus standing at the right hand of God.”  In all other passages of Scripture showing Jesus’ exaltation, He is pictured “sitting” at God’s right hand (see Psalms 110:1; Hebrews 1:3; 12:2).  But why then is Jesus seen standing in Stephen’s vision?  Most, if not all scholars agree that Jesus was standing to receive Stephen into His presence.      

                           

VIII. Conclusion.  Our God does not change.  As He was in the past, He is still faithful to all generations and His mercy endures forever.  If we want to know whether God will deliver us today, all we need to do is look back and see how He delivered us yesterday.  Let’s constantly recall God’s goodness over the years---to our individual families and to the church as a whole.  Doing so helps us stay strong through those times when it feels like God is not moving.  Stories of God’s faithfulness give us instruction, and they give us hope.  Let’s get back to telling them.






















 












 























































      

           

 







 

Witnessing to the Truth

                             Sunday School Lesson

                                            

Lesson: Acts 5:27-29, 33
                                                                                                 
Golden Text: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
I.  INTRODUCTION.  The early church in Jerusalem lived in exciting days.  The Holy Spirit’s convicting work had converted three thousand in one day (see Acts 2:41) and within a short time the church had grown to include five thousand men (see Acts 4:4).  But what was the church to do if serious opposition from the authorities began to arise?  Suppose preaching Jesus led to physical harm or even death?  Should they change their message to make it less offensive?  Should they not obey authorities?  As we will see in this week’s lesson, the apostles faced those questions soon enough.  They had ready answers.
II. BACKGROUND FOR THE LESSON.  The spreading influence of Christ’s gospel (see Acts 5:12-16) aroused the high priest and the Sadducees to renewed opposition (see Acts 5:17).  They took the apostles (perhaps all of them) and put them in the public jail, intending to bring them before the Sanhedrin council the next morning as they had done before (see Acts 5:18).  However, during the night an angel released them and ordered them to speak the full message of Christ (see Acts 5:19-20).  Early the next morning, the apostles entered the temple courts and resumed their teaching (see Acts 5:21).  Ironically, the Sanhedrin was at that very hour assembling to put them on trial, thinking they were still in custody.  The officers who had been sent to get the apostles from jail could not find them causing great perplexity and consternation (see Acts 5:22-24).  Eventually, the officers located the apostles in the temple.  Then the officers, fearing that the people might stone them for re-arresting the apostles, quietly took them into custody again and brought them before the Council (see Acts 5:25-26).  This is where our lesson begins.      
III. OBEDIENCE TO GOD REQUIRED (Acts 5:27-29)    
A. The confrontation between the apostles and the Sanhedrin Council (Acts 5:27-28).
1. (vs. 27).  Our first verse says “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them.”  The arresting officers brought the apostles and “set them before the council.”  Most likely, the members of the Sanhedrin Council sat in a semicircle with the apostles in the middle.  There they began to be interrogated by “the high priest” who acted as the presiding officer.
2. (vs. 28).  In this verse, the high priest asked the apostles “Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.”  The high priest leveled two charges against the apostles.  First, they had disobeyed the previous command to stop teaching in Jesus’ name (see Acts 4:16-28).  The high priest said “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?  The fact that the apostles disobeyed that first command should not have been a surprise to the religious leaders since Peter had told them frankly that they were compelled to speak what they had seen and heard (see Acts 4:19-20).  Not only had the apostles continued to preach Jesus Christ, the high priest also said “ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.”  In other words, the apostles had preached the gospel throughout Jerusalem.  With the second charge presented against the apostles, the high priest said that they intended “to bring this man's blood upon us (the Sanhedrin Council).”  In other words, part of the message that the apostles preached declared that the Jewish leaders, by pressuring Pontius Pilot had killed Jesus (see Acts 2:22).  But it’s absurd that these leaders were even bothered by the accusation that they had put Jesus to death.  A short time before, they had incited the mob to cry out “His blood be on us, and on our children” (see Matthew 27:20-25).  The high priest was filled with so much hatred that he couldn’t even bring himself to say Jesus’ name.  He said the apostles were teaching “in this name” and bringing “this man's blood upon us.”  How hard were the hearts of these officials!  It didn’t matter to them whether the apostles’ message was true or not.  All they cared about was that the gospel message the apostles preached made them look bad and challenged their authority.  The Sanhedrin Council was not used to that.
B. The conviction of the apostles (Acts 5:29).  This verse says “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”  Although Luke writes that “Peter and the other apostles answered and said” it’s unlikely that they all spoke at the same time.  Apparently Peter was the spokesman for the apostles, but the fact that they all agreed is seen in the answer “We ought to obey God rather than men.”  God had given the apostles orders to preach Jesus Christ; so they could not obey those who told them not to preach.  They had made their choice to obey the higher authority. 

IV. THE OPPOSITION QUIETED (Acts 5:33-40).  Verses 30-32 are not part of our lesson, but in those verses, Peter explained what compelled them to disobey the Sanhedrin.  God had given them a message to preach, and Peter reiterated it.  He again charged the Jewish religious leaders with the death of Jesus (see Acts 5:30) and affirmed His resurrection to be Prince and Saviour in order to “give repentance for Israel and forgiveness of sins” (see Acts 5:31).  Then Peter said that they were witnesses of everything they preached about Jesus and so was the Holy Spirit who is given to everyone who obeys Him (see Acts 5:33).  This is where the remaining verses of our lesson begin.     

A. The execution of the apostles contemplated (Acts 5:33).  This verse says “When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.”  The phrase, “When they heard that” refers to the message Peter gave to the Council in verses 30-32 (mentioned above), which included God’s forgiveness as well as His condemnation.  But the Council members were so upset by the charges Peter leveled against them that they paid no attention to their guilt or need for forgiveness.  Instead, “they were cut to the heart.”  This literally means “sawn asunder” but can be translated “enraged” or “furious.”These members of this highest authority in Israel refused to be rebuked by these men whom they had earlier referred to as “unlearned and ignorant men” (see Acts 4:5-7, 13).  The members of the Sanhedrin were so angry with the apostles that they wanted to kill them.  Luke said that they “took counsel to slay them.”
B. Gamaliel calls for restraint (Acts 5:34-36). 
1. (vs. 34).  This verse says “Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space.”  In the midst of the Council contemplating killing the apostles, Luke writes “Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel.”  The member of the Sanhedrin that stood up to speak was “a Pharisee” (see the notes under verse 27), and his name was “Gamaliel.”  He was one of the greatest rabbis or teachers in Judaism, and had also taught Paul (see Acts 22:3).  “Gamaliel” was also “a doctor of the law.”  The word “doctor” as used today refers to physicians and other professionals who have doctorates.  However, here “doctor” means teacher.   “Gamaliel” was a teacher of the law.  He studied the Old Testament Scriptures, read lectures by the sacred authors, and trained students in the knowledge of them.  Luke goes on to tell us that “Gamaliel” also “had in reputation among all the people.”  In other words, he was greatly respected by the people and even those on the Sanhedrin Council, which made him the right person to advise the Council on what to do with the apostles.  When “Gamaliel” took the floor, he first “commanded to put the apostles forth a little space.”  This means that he had the apostles taken outside the meeting chamber for a little while so they could discuss what to do in private. 
2. (vs. 35).  This verse continues to say “And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.”  Gamaliel, stood before the council and urged them to be careful of what they were planning to do to these men.  One characteristic of a good leader is to be willing to carefully consider all choices.  Very rarely will we regret any decisions we’ve made after thinking them through.  It’s those quick decisions that we often regret making.
B. Gamaliel gives some examples (Acts 5:36-37).
1. (vs. 36).  In this verse Gamaliel continued to say to the Council “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.”  Having urged his fellow members to be cautious in dealing with the apostles, now Gamaliel gave two examples of civil movements that had failed because they were not of God.  In the first example Gamaliel said “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves.”  We are not given any information about this “Theudas” but Josephus, the Jewish historian wrote about a person also named “Theudas” who came on the scene about ten years after the events in our lesson.  Therefore, this is not the same person Gamaliel referred to.  The “Theudas” in our text was “boasting himself to be somebody.”  This most likely means that he claimed to be some kind of deliverer, maybe even the Messiah, but there’s no proof of that.  But Jesus did warn His disciples that “false Christs and false prophets shall arise” (see Mark 13:22) as a sign of the times.  Many scholars suggest that “Theudas” was simply a revolutionary leader, one of many zealots who wanted to break Israel away from Roman rule.  The phrase “to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves” means that he had about 400 followers which indicates that he had quite a bit of influence.  Regardless of who “Theudas” was and what he tried to do, Gamaliel continued to say “and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.”  In other words everyone who followed him eventually were scattered and ran away and his movement was “brought to nought” meaning it wasn’t successful.
2. (vs. 37).  In this verse, Gamaliel continued to say, “After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.”   Gamaliel here gave a second example of a movement that was not successful.  The words “After this man” refer to Theudas who Gamaliel mentioned in the first example.  Sometime after Theudas’ revolt failed, there “rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing.”  This “Judas of Galilee” is mentioned by Josephus, the Jewish historian in his writings.  Josephus also describes him as being from Galilee which agrees with Luke’s description here.  We are told that this particular “Judas” started his movement “in the days of the taxing.”  This refers to a second census that was taken to collect taxes for Rome around 6 A.D.  The first one was taken between 6 and 4 B.C. around the birth of Jesus.  Historical records indicate that “Judas of Galilee” and his followers declared that it was unlawful for Jews to pay taxes to Rome, so he led an armed resistance.   As a result, he “drew away much people after him.”  In other words, many people followed him.  But like others before him, “Judas” is said to have “also perished” or died.  In addition, “all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.”  This means that everyone who followed him were scattered.  Therefore, his movement was also “brought to nought” or was unsuccessful. 

C. Gamaliel acknowledges God’s providence (Acts 5:38-39).

1. (vs. 38).  In this verse, Gamaliel continued to say “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”  Gamaliel used the previous two examples of unsuccessful movements hoping to cause the Sanhedrin Council to think more seriously about the present situation.  He advised them to “Refrain from these men, and let them alone.”  In essence he was saying, “in this present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go!”  He went on to say “for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”  Gamaliel reasoned that if the apostles’ “counsel” or what they teach, and what they do was purely of human origin, nothing will come of it.  The apostles’ movement would fail.  Therefore, drastic measures were not necessary.
2. (vs. 39).  Then in this verse, Gamaliel said “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”  Having stated that if the apostles’ teachings and actions were their own they would not be successful, Gamaliel then said, “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.”  The word “it” here refers back to “this counsel or work” of the apostles in verse 38 meaning the teachings and actions of the apostles.  Gamaliel warned his fellow councilmen that what the apostles taught about Christ may be only a passing thing.  However, on the other hand, if it comes from God it was both useless and dangerous to resist it.  No doubt Gamaliel had a true reverence for the sovereignty of God.
D. The Council’s decision (Acts 5:40).  This verse says “And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.”  The Council members “agreed” with Gamaliel’s argument.  God used his argument to deliver the apostles from death.  Luke tells us that “when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus.”  The Council had the apostles brought back into the meeting chamber (see verse 34) where they were “beaten” and commanded not to say another word “in the name of Jesus.”  They were probably flogged which consisted of being whipped with thirty-nine stripes according to the law (see Deuteronomy 25:3; II; Mark 13:9; Corinthians 11:24).  This was the first case of physical persecution for the church.  The Council hadn’t found the apostles guilty of anything deserving of 39 stripes, but apparently they hoped that the beatings, along with the threat of worse treatment to come, would intimidate the apostles into silence.  After the beatings and being warned not to speak anymore “in the name of Jesus,” the Council “let them go.”  How pitiful were the efforts of the Sanhedrin Council against the apostles!  They wouldn’t succeed because as Gamaliel had warned, they were even at that moment fighting God! 
V. THE APOSTLES’ RESPONSE  (Acts 5:41-42)
A. On their way rejoicing (Acts 5:41).  This verse says “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.”  If the religious leaders thought that punishing the apostles for preaching Christ would stop them, they were headed for a rude awakening.  Far from being intimidated, when they were beaten for doing their Master’s work, the apostles knew just how to respond: “they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing.”  The apostles never considered silence as an option.So precious was Christ to the apostles that they considered it a privilege to receive even the harshest punishment for His service.  We know this because the apostles rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.”  They were overjoyed that God had considered them worthy to “suffer shame,” or disgrace for preaching in “his name.”
B. The apostles continue to preach Jesus Christ (Acts 5:42).  Our final verse says “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.”  The apostles didn’t retreat in fear of the Sanhedrin Council.  Instead they took advantage of every opportunity to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Their ministry was not secret or sporadic because “daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.”  Nothing stopped the apostles from teaching and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.  They taught and preached “daily” as they had done before (see Acts 2:46-47).  They preached the gospel of Jesus Christ both in “in the temple,” meaning in public, and also in “in every house” or private homes.                            
VI. Conclusion.  In this week’s lesson we are taught that the early church continued to grow and reach more people with the gospel, but conflicts with the chief priests also intensified.  Once again, the apostles were imprisoned for their faith.  However, they were miraculously released from prison and continued to preach in the temple.  When we grab every opportunity to witness for Christ, we will see the church grow as it did in the days of the early church.  Persecution had only confirmed the faith of the apostles.  May our faith be as firm as theirs.























 

Sharing All Things

                            Sunday School Lesson
                                            

Lesson: Acts 4:34-5:10
                                                                                               
Golden Text: “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold” (Acts 4:34).
I.  INTRODUCTION.  In the early church, none of the Christians felt that what they had was their own, and so they were able to give and share in order to eliminate poverty among them.  In this week’s lesson we will see just how the early church believers were willing to share from giving hearts.  However, we will also have an example of those who were not sincere in their giving, and how God dealt with them.
II. BACKGROUND FOR THE LESSON.  The church was formed on the Day of Pentecost after the gospel was preached and thousands of souls were saved (see Acts 2:1-4, 22-41).  Soon after Pentecost, there were needs in the newly formed church that resulted in a willingness to share physical possessions with one another (see Acts 2:44-45).  This situation probably developed because many of the Jewish pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for Pentecost obeyed the gospel (see Acts 2:41) and stayed in Jerusalem for awhile before returning to their native lands (see Acts 2:5, 9-11).  The author of the Book of Acts was Luke, who also wrote the gospel that carries his name.  He tells us that this spirit of giving among believers resulted from the fact that the Jerusalem church was “of one heart and of one soul” (see Acts 4:32).  With the Great Commission now being carried out in Jerusalem (see Acts 1:8) and unity being experienced by the saints of God, we can understand why God’s “great grace was upon them” (see Acts 4:33).  Our lesson begins at this point.
III. AN EXAMPLE OF GENEROUS GIVING (Acts 4:34-37)    
A. The equitable distribution (Acts 4:34-35).
1. (vs. 34).  Our first verse says “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold.”  Because God’s grace was upon the believers (see Acts 4:33), Luke tells us that “Neither was there any among them that lacked.”  The early church was able to share possessions and property as a result of the unity brought by the Holy Spirit (see Acts 4:32).  In order to eliminate poverty among the believers, as soon as a need arose, “as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold.”  Many of these believers were poor; others had considerable possessions and wealth.  Those who had houses and lands sold them and brought the money to help those in need. 

2. (vs. 35).  This verse continues to say “And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”  When property was sold and the money was brought to be distributed, it was brought to the apostles.  Luke wrote that they “laid them down at the apostles' feet. “  The word “them” refers to the money received from the property and/or possessions that had been sold.The distribution of funds to those in need “was made unto every man according as he had need.”  This probably means that the person in need was examined in some way to determine what their personal or family needs were.       

B. The encourager identified (Acts 4:36-37).  
1. (vs. 36).  This verse goes on to say “And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus.”  At this point, Luke introduces us to a man who was among those giving.  This man’s name was “Joses” or Joseph.  However, the apostles had given him another name.  The word “surnamed” comes from a Greek word that literally means “additionally called.”  The new name the apostles gave Joseph was “Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,).”  This was quite fitting because “Barnabas” is a combination of the Aramaic word “Bar” which means “son of” and the word for prophecy.  It has the idea of the exhortation or encouragement the prophets gave.  Therefore, the name is interpreted as “The son of consolation” or “son of encouragement.”  The last part of this verse also identifies Barnabas as “a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus.”  In other words, he was of the tribe of Levi, and from the island of Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea.  As a Levite, Barnabas may have travelled to Jerusalem to help the priests in the temple during the Feast of Pentecost. 

2. (vs. 37).  Still referring to Barnabas, this verse goes on to say “Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.”  Barnabas is described as “Having land” which means that he owned either a farm, country land, or a field. At any rate, Barnabas “sold it (his land), and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.”  Barnabas showed his spirit of generosity by selling a piece of land he owned and giving the money for the common good of the church.  He was not obligated to do this (see Acts 5:4).  He did it out of love.  By doing this he set an example for us.  Every believer should be willing to give of his or her substance to Christ’s church.  Barnabas also showed humble submission to the apostles’ leadership in the church by bringing the money to them rather than using it as he saw fit.  

IV. AN EXAMPLE OF DECEPTIVE GIVING (Acts 5:1-10)  

A. The decision of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-2). 

1. (vs. 1).  This verse says “But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession.”  The word “But” introduces a contrast between Barnabas and to other people “a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife.”  Luke describes “Ananias” as “a certain man named Ananias” because this was a common name.  Luke wanted to distinguish him from others who had the same name (see Acts 9:10; 23:2).  Perhaps inspired by the generosity of Barnabas and others, “Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession.”  This possession is identified as land in verse 3.  It is sometimes assumed that Ananias and Sapphira sold all they owned, but that does not seem to be the case, because Luke writes that they sold “a possession” indicating only some of what they owned.  It’s important to note that apparently, both of these people agreed to sell the property, and they did it freely without being coerced by the apostles.
2. (vs. 2).  Still referring to Ananias and Sapphira, Luke goes on to say in this verse “And 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.”  Ananias and Sapphira not only agreed to sell the property, they also agreed to keep back “part of the price.”  It’s very likely that even before the possession was sold, the two agreed to take only a portion of the money from the sale to the apostles and keep the rest for themselves.  They would give the impression that they were sacrificially bringing all of it to Christ.  No doubt they wanted to reap the esteem and praise they had seen others receive for giving sacrificially.  Therefore, they lied about the selling price.  That was their sin.  It wouldn’t have been wrong to give only a portion of the money for distribution among the poor, but that would not have brought the praise they wanted.  The phrase “his wife also being privy to it” means that his wife knew all about the deception and agreed with it.  After deciding to keep some of the money for themselves, they “brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.”  The “certain part” was what was left after Ananias and Sapphira kept some back. 
B. The duplicity of Ananias and Sapphira (acts 5:3-4).
1. (vs. 3).  This verse says “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?”  After Ananias brought the money to the apostles, we are told that Peter asked, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?”  One has to wonder how Peter knew what Ananias and Sapphira had done.  Only by special revelation from God could Peter have known about this evil deed.  Yes, God had made it known to him.  The Holy Spirit of God had manifested Himself in mighty power to the believers on the Day of Pentecost, but now Satan had filled Ananias’ “heart to lie to the Holy Spirit.”  All sin begins in the heart (see Mark 7:20-23) and is inspired by the devil.  Thinking that he could deceive the Holy Spirit and the apostles, Ananias showed contempt for the Holy Spirit.  This was sinful blasphemy indeed!
2. (vs. 4).  In this verse Peter continued to say to Ananias “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.”  Here, Peter asked Ananias three questions.  The first two questions he asked were “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?”  Peter wanted to make it plain that no one was being forced to give anything.  It was all voluntary.  The phrase “Whiles it remained” means as long as Ananias had his property it was his own, it belonged to him.  The same thing was true after he sold the property.  It was in Ananias’ power to do with the money whatever he wanted.  It still belonged to him.  The problem was deciding to hold back part of the money which led Peter to ask the third question: “why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?”  In other words, they had agreed to give whatever the property sold for, but after the sale, which no doubt brought more than Ananias  expected, he decided “in thine (his) heart” to hold some of the money back for their own benefit.  In addition, it would make him and his wife appear more generous than they really were.  If they had told Peter that they had held back part of the money, and explained the reason why, the outcome may have been different.  Note:  Sin always begins the same way as a simple desire planted in the heart or mind by Satan.  This desire then gives birth to a heartfelt willingness to accomplish the sin.   Once the desire is established, it produces sin which brings God’s righteous judgment (see James 1:14-15).  It was the responsibility of Ananias to resist the devil---to say no to the temptation to lie.  Peter didn’t give Ananias any chance to offer an excuse.  He proceeded to tell Ananias that “thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.”  Ananias didn’t lie to Peter, he lied to God.  We must all come to grips with the fact that we can’t hide anything from God (see Psalms 139:1-4).  Note:  Here we have proof that the Holy Spirit is God and therefore a Person.  In verse 3, Peter said that Ananias had lied to the Holy Ghost, but in this verse 4, Peter said that he had lied “unto God.”  Only a person can be lied to.  Lies are not told to powers or influences.  The One to whom this lie was told was none other than God the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity.
C. The death of Ananias (Acts 5:5-6).
1. (vs. 5).  This verse says “And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.”  As soon as Ananias heard Peter’s charge against him he “fell down, and gave up the ghost.”  In other words he died right on the spot.  When Ananias brought his offering, he had no idea that his sin would be found out, but it was (see Genesis 44:16; Numbers 32:23).  What happened to Ananias was the result of God’s judgment of him (see Proverbs 19:9).  Peter didn’t strike him with a death blow.  He died on the spot!  This may seem like a very harsh punishment, but it was right because it came from a just God.The last part of this verse says “and great fear came on all them that heard these things.”  The news of what happened to Ananias quickly spread causing “great fear” to come over everyone who heard about it.  In other words, anyone who heard what happened to Ananias became terrified.  No doubt this “great fear” also included a renewed respect and reverence for God (see Acts 19:17).  Note:  Undoubtedly this was one of the reasons why this sin was judged so severely.  It was most important to impress upon the people just how serious sin is.  If the Christian community hadn’t realized it before, they now knew that they were part of something real with great significance.  God was not playing religious games here!  Those outside the Christian community who may have dismissed Christianity as just another new sect, or a passing fad, now realized that something very serious was happening.
2. (vs. 6).  In this verse Luke continues to write “And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.”  The fact that “the young men arose” seems to indicate that they were usually present and accustomed to doing servile tasks for the apostles and other believers.  However, carrying out dead hypocritical church members was probably something they were not expecting to have to do.  Referring to Ananias, these young men “wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.”  It was customary among the Jews to wrap dead bodies in cloths (see Matthew 27:57-59; John 19:40).  The young men followed the custom and quickly buried Ananias.  There was no mourning, nor a funeral, and there’s no evidence that his wife was told of her husband’s death.  What a way to go!
D. The denial by Sapphira (Acts 5:7-8).
1. (vs. 7).  This verse says “And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.”  About three hours after her husband had come to the apostles and suddenly died, Sapphira “his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.”  She came in to the apostles with the same intention of deceiving them.  However, when she came, she was unaware of what had happened to her husband.  It’s amazing that the news of Ananias’ death spread throughout Jerusalem without his wife hearing about it.  For sure, God was in control.
2. (vs. 8).  This verse says “And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.”  At this point Peter had to determine if Sapphira would say that the land had been sold for the same price that Ananias said it had.  If she did, the apostle would know that she and her husband conspired together to lie to God.   So he gave her the chance to come clean and confess.  He said to her “Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much?”  Again we are not told how much the land was sold for because that wasn’t the important thing.  Unfortunately, Sapphira took the low road and lied, answering Peter saying “Yea, for so much.”  In other words, she confirmed that they had sold the land for the same amount that her husband said they had.
E. The death of Sapphira (Acts 5:9-10).
1. (vs. 9). This verse says “Then 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 shall carry thee out.”  After Sapphira confirmed what her husband told the apostles they sold the land for, Peter asked her his final question: “How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?”  The Living Bible translations says:“How could you and your husband even think of doing a thing like this—conspiring together to test the Spirit of God’s ability to know what is going on?”  That she and her husband “agreed together” indicates a conspiracy on the part of this couple.  They may not have realized that their deceit was an effort “to tempt the Spirit of the Lord.”  The word “tempt” here means “to put to the test.”  Whether knowingly, or unknowingly Ananias and Sapphira were testing God’s ability to know everything, even those things done in secret.  Peter may not have known what was going to happen to Ananias when he lied, but at this point he sure knew what was going to happen to Sapphira.  He said to her “behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.”  Without being given the opportunity to answer Peter’s question, for the first time Sapphira learns of her husband’s death, and of her own imminent death.  In essence Peter said to her: “Just outside that door are the young men who buried your husband, and they will carry you out too.”  The phrase “carry thee out” refers to being carried outside the city of Jerusalem where cemeteries were usually located.
2. (vs. 10).  Our final verse says “Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.”  As soon as Peter announced her judgment, Luke writes “Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost.”  There was no need for an executioner because a killing power went along with Peter’s words, as sometimes a healing power did; for the God in whose name he spoke “kills and makes alive” (see Deuteronomy 32:39).  It’s interesting that she fell dead at Peter’s feet, the same place where she should have laid the whole price and did not (see Acts 4:37) .  Instead, she herself was laid at Peter’s feet, as if to make up what they had held back.  The phrase “yielded up the ghost” or “gave up the spirit” is another way of referring to death (Ecclesiastes 12:7).  The phrase “the young men came in” indicates that they were not present when Sapphira died.  However, when they entered where the apostles were, they “found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.”  Thus Sapphira too, experiences divine judgment by immediate death, and the believers again respond with a dishonorable burial like her husband’s.  It’s interesting, but Luke does not mention that her body was wrapped as her husband’s was (see Acts 5:6).  This may be because of the Jewish custom that women could wrap both men and women, but men could only wrap men.

 

V. CONCLUSION.  Like the early Christians, believers today are also not commanded to sell our homes and possessions to give to others the way they did.  However, God expects us to show the same spirit of selfless sharing that the early church demonstrated.  There are many ways that we can show this kind of sharing.  If your church has a benevolence fund, you can contribute to it regularly.  You may know a fellow believer who has some need, so you can give that person your money, possessions, or your time to help meet that need.  Some Christians even find it helpful to set aside a certain amount of money each month to have available when a need arises.  However, we must remember that regardless of how much we share with other believers, if it’s not done with a sincere heart and love for them and the Lord, it’s worthless and sinful.  This week’s lesson has taught us that when the sins of selfishness, greed, and deceit threatened the purity of His church, God dealt with it swiftly and sternly.  Believe me; He will do the same thing today!