1. Scripture authority, including that of our Lord Himself, represents man as set betwixt a twofold world of invisible moral influences. The heart of man is as it were a little city or fortress on the borderland between two nations at war with each other, and liable to be captured by whichever at that point proves itself the stronger. “Why hath Satan filled thy heart?” There is a real, malign Tempter, who can pour evil affections and purposes into a man's heart. But he cannot do it unless the man opens his heart, as that “why?” implies. The same thought of our cooperation and concurrence, so that, however Satan suggests, it is we who are guilty, comes out in the second question, “How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart?” Reverently we may venture to say not only that Christ stands at the door and knocks, but that the enemy of Him and His stands there too, and he too enters “if any man open the door.”
Watts-the man of that aggressive nineteenth century-had many wild thoughts, but there was one thought that never even for an instant strayed across his burning brain. He never once thought, “Why should I understand the cat, any more than the cat understands me?” He never thought, “Why should I be just to the merits of a Chinaman, any more than a pig studies the mystic virtues of a camel?” He affronted heaven and the angels, but there was one hard arrogant dogma that he never doubted, that he himself was as central and as responsible as God.2 [Note: G. K. Chesterton, G. F. Watts, 36.]
It is told of the child of a famous painter that, from want of due repression and discipline, he gave way from time to time to paroxysms of violent and vindictive rage, and that in one of these furious moods he kicked and spat at his father. Soon afterwards, downcast and remorseful, he drew near and made his humble confession, “Father, the devil told me to kick you; the spitting was my own idea.”1 [Note: Dean Hole, Then and Now, 12.]
2. With the final fate of Ananias and Sapphira we have nothing whatever to do. Only the time, the place, and the manner of their death were meant for the teaching of the Church-as a protest that the Holy Ghost is in her, and as a warning against hypocrisy. To be false in their hearts, and to thrust this falsehood into their religious worship and pretended service of God in His Church, was the offence for which they died.
The terrible severity of the punishment can be understood only by remembering the importance of preserving the young community from corruption at the very beginning. Unless the vermin are cleared from the springing plant, it will not grow. As Achan's death warned Israel at the beginning of their entrance into the promised land, so Ananias and Sapphira perished that all generations of the Church might fear to pretend to self-surrender while cherishing its opposite, and might feel that they have to give account to One who knows the secrets of the heart, and counts nothing as given if anything is surreptitiously kept back.
The theory of the vow of poverty in the Church took its rise very much from the history of Ananias and Sapphira. That story had a deeper meaning than being a mere lie-it was sacrilege. There was a profession of charity to the Church not kept; an attempt to cheat the Holy Spirit that was in the Church, by vowing more than they meant to perform. St. Peter accepted the vow, but examined them on its sincerity.2 [Note: C. A. E. Moberly, Dulce Domum, 266.]
Begin thoroughly. It is a thousand times easier to live altogether for Christ than half for Christ. Don't be an amphibian, half in one world, half in another. Be men, through and through, men in Christ Jesus.3 [Note: The Life of Henry Drummond, 482.]