The Infiltration of Sin into the Church - Part 1

Alright, well if you would take your Bible and turn with me to Acts chapter 5. We finally turn the corner into Acts chapter 5. Tonight we will be in verses 1 to 11, but we will not cover all of these verses. Now here in chapter 5 we have more great and wonderful things happening in this fledgling church, yet this powerful church. We know what church this is. This is the first church, the church there in Jerusalem. Here in verses 1 to 11 we have several new firsts. Now think about it. Throughout our study through chapter 1 to 4 we have seen quite a few first things.

First of all, this is the first church in the New Testament, really the first church to exist in what we would call the church age. But think about the first things we have seen in this first church and there's been quite a lot. We saw the first sermon preached in the church age when thousands were saved, which really was the birth of the church. Of course, that was the sermon that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost after the miraculous events that took place when the Spirit of God was poured out on that first small group of believers.

Then we saw the first description of the church right after the church was born, and that description is in Acts 2 verses 42 to 47. Then we saw the first apostolic miracle performed and recorded in Acts 3, and that was when Peter and John healed the beggar who had been lain from birth. And as a result of those events, this great crowd gathered around them, and Peter preached and thousands more were saved and added to the church. Of course, all those things took place at the temple. Then we saw the first outbreak of persecution against the church, which led to the church's first reaction to that first persecution.

Those things took place in chapter 4. And here in verses 1 to 11, chapter 5, we come to a few more firsts. We have the first case of church discipline. We have the first judgment upon the church. Yes, judgment upon the church. We have the first sin, which led to death recorded in the New Testament. And all of this, because we have the first instance of sin being brought into the church. Now, I do not mean to imply that these folks were sinless prior to chapter 5. So notice what we have here in these firsts. Luke is not only giving us the good. We've seen a lot of good in chapters 1 to 4, but here he is giving us the bad.

He's giving us the negative. Now, before we get into our verses, I want to glance over where we are in the life of this church. We have seen that at the end of chapter 4, we have the church of Jerusalem that was nothing but great, wonderful, and powerful. Think about that. Nothing but great, wonderful, and powerful. Let me explain. Their church was born in greatness. Great numbers of souls had been saved so that the church numbered 2000s. I had made the comment that it was 10,000 plus. Somewhere in some of my study this week, I ran across something where John MacArthur said it could have been 20,000. Somebody's math is off.

I would bet that it's mine. And they had the greatest church leaders. Imagine a church of, say, 15 or 20,000 being pastored by the apostles. They enjoyed great and wonderful preaching and teaching from these great leaders. Now, I want you to do something in your mind. Think about the greatest preaching you could ever dream of sitting under. It's one thing to listen to a podcast. I mean sitting under. Think about what it must have been like to sit under the preaching of Charles Spurgeon. We know that Charles Spurgeon was that great English Baptist pastor of the 19th century. He was called the Prince of Preachers.

Think about what it must have been like to sit under the preaching of the reformers. Men like John Knox and Whitcliffe, who was an English reformer, and Calvin, and Zwingli, and others. Think about our modern-day Southern Baptist Convention preachers that are admired. Think about, too, that a lot of people brag on through the years. Think about what it must have been like to sit under the preaching of Adrian Rogers and W.A. Criswell. Think about what it must have been like to sit under John MacArthur, who's pastored for years. Now, you make your list.

Well, the believers in this first church sat under the great and wonderful preaching of the apostles, and I do not think it could get any better than that. The only way that it could have gotten better was if Paul was in the mix, but we know that wasn't God's plan. They also participated in and enjoyed and benefited from great and wonderful giving in the life of the church. We've seen it was sacrificial. Scholars tell us that thousands of Jews had come to Jerusalem for Pentecost, and we know that many thousands had been converted to Christ, so these recently born again Jews just stayed in Jerusalem.

They didn't go home, and because of the difficult economic situation and political situation in Jerusalem and because these Jews had joined this new religion called Christianity, many had no means of income, so there were great, great financial needs among them. So these believers gave greatly and wonderfully to meet the physical needs of their new brothers and sisters in Christ. Also, they enjoyed and they witnessed and even participated in the powerful working of the Holy Spirit. These believers witnessed thousands coming to saving faith through the powerful work of the Spirit to save souls.

Imagine seeing 3,000 people converted to Christ at one time, and then on top of that, those 3,000 being baptized. They witnessed and enjoyed and participated in the powerful healings and the powerful miracles that were around them. Simply, this church and these believers truly experienced the power and the work of the Holy Spirit of God in an unusual way. These were apostolic days. So at this point, we could say that the church at Jerusalem was on a roll. Things were only good other than the threat of more persecution. Things could really, they really couldn't get any better than they were.

But as we will see here in chapter 5, Luke shows us that there was another great brewing threat working up against the church, and this threat was not from outward persecution but from inward corruption. Now before we get into our verses, I want us to look back at a few verses at the end of chapter 4 that we covered last week. This is a glance over. We need to see that Luke is giving us a very distinct contrast between the great unity and love of the church seen in chapter 4 verses 32 to 37 up against an inward corruption that came into the church in chapter 5. Now this is what was happening.

In chapter 4 verses 36 to 37, we see that Barnabas, who was a Levite from Cyprus and who had obviously he had come to Jerusalem for Passover, he was converted to Christ and he was a part of the church. And Luke tells us that he sold a field and he brought the money to the apostles to meet the physical needs of the believers in the church. And we see in verse 34 to 35 and back in chapter 2 verse 42 to 47 that Barnabas was not the only one who gave in this sacrificial way. But the Holy Spirit of God led Luke to name Barnabas as one who gave sacrificially. But as we will see, a husband and a wife in the church noticed what Barnabas did.

And no doubt they noticed what others did as well. And this husband and wife named Ananias and Sapphira did exactly what Barnabas did or so it seemed. Luke shows us that they actually did the opposite of Barnabas. By the temptation of Satan and because of their own personal sinful desires, they brought the corruption of sin into the church. So what we have here is this. This couple Ananias and Sapphira brought the corruption of sin into the church. Sin infiltrated the church in and through what Ananias and Sapphira did and who Ananias and Sapphira were. Now this brings me to the title of the message.

I call this the infiltration of sin into the church. Again this is a part one because we will not cover all of these verses tonight. The infiltration of sin into the church. Now let's read our verses, all 11 of them, and then I will explain the breakdown or how we will cover them. Verse 1, "But a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and 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 for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man, but to God.' When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard it. The young man rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.

And Peter said to her, 'Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.' And she said, 'Yes, for so much.' But Peter said to her, 'How is it that you have agreed together to test the spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.' Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young man came in and found her dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And then verse 11, 'Great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard these things.' Now, I want us to examine three things from these verses.

Two, we will cover tonight, and the last two next week. First, I want us to look at the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in verses one to two. And then second, I want us to see the Responsal Peter, how he handled these things, verses three to four. Next week we will cover third, the Judgment of God upon Ananias and Sapphira, verses five to ten. And then last, verse 11, the work of God in the church as a result of all of these things. So let's get started. Number one, I want us to see the sin of Ananias and Sapphira. Number one, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira.

Now, before we get into what they did in verses one to two, I want to read the last two verses of chapter four and then move right into these first two verses of chapter two. So look at your copy of God's Word with me. Chapter four, starting in verse 36, Joseph, who was also called by the Apostles, part of us, which means son of encouragement, a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him 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 with his wife's knowledge, he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it, that would be the proceeds, and laid it at the Apostles' feet. Now, by reading these verses together, we can see the difference between the actions of Barnabas and the actions of Ananias and Sapphira, and we can definitely see that these events are connected. But let's compare the two. Barnabas sold a field and brought all of the money to the Apostles, but Ananias and Sapphira sold a field and brought some of the money to the Apostles.

Barnabas did not keep back any of the money from his sale, but Ananias and Sapphira kept back some of the money from their sale. Now, the text does not say this, but I think it is safe to say so. But it seems that Barnabas somehow communicated that he gave all the money from his sale, and he did. But somehow, Ananias and Sapphira, they communicated that they gave all the money from their sale, and they did not. Now, this leads me to a few questions. Was it a sin for Ananias and Sapphira to keep back some of the money? Was it a sin for them to own property to begin with?

Did Barnabas as well as Ananias and Sapphira sell property because they were commanded to do so? Well, the answer to all of those questions, no. It was not a sin for them to own property. Nowhere in Scripture do we see that it is a sin to own property or even to have wealth. As a matter of fact, it is the opposite. Listen to 1 Timothy 6, 17 to 18. Paul says to Timothy, who is pastoring there in a church now, and Timothy was to command this to those believers in the Ephesian church. He says, "Ask for the rich in this present age." What does that mean? Wealthy believers.

"As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy." Now, notice Paul is saying God provides those things for us to enjoy. Verse 18, "They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share." So what we see here is this. It is not a sin to be wealthy or even to own property. It is not even a sin to enjoy those things. But we must see that those things are given not for us to trust in, but for us to use. And then they were not commanded to sell their property and to give the proceeds away.

As a matter of fact, their giving was to be like all giving as seen in the New Testament. This was to be voluntary as God led them. 2 Corinthians 9, 7 says, "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." So they were to give according to how God led them, not because they were commanded. But that other question, was it a sin for Anasim Zafara and his wife to hold back a part of those proceeds? Well, the answer to that question is no. Their sin was not in giving some and keeping some. Their sin was a sin of spiritual pretense or what can be called hypocrisy.

John MacArthur points out that they had the opportunity to make double profit. I like that. He's right. They had the opportunity to make double profit. But it was not that they were going to reinvest the part of the money they held back and make double their money. No, their double profit was both physical and spiritual. They were going to make physical profit by keeping back some of the money. And they were trying to make spiritual profit by getting spiritual recognition and prestige just like Barnabas. Their sin was not in keeping some of the money.

Their sin was a sin of pretending to do something that they did not do and pretending to be someone they were not. One thing that I ran across from more than one scholar that I studied this week is a detail in the language. In verse two, the English standard says they kept back some of the proceeds. And this phrase kept back comes from a word in the original which simply means to divide or to set apart for self. Now some scholars point out that this same verb used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament is used to speak of Achan when he stole or kept back some things for himself, those devoted things.

And those scholars that make that point are making this kind of a connection. They are saying possibly Ananias and Sapphira had come to some kind of an agreement to give the total amount of those proceeds to the church. And if that was the case, they were guilty of stealing that which they had promised. If that was the case, they were guilty of stealing that which was set apart unto God. Well, the text doesn't really say that, but it is good for fault. But notice, their sin was not so much in stealing what potentially belonged to God or stealing what had been promised to God. Their sin was a sin of hypocrisy.

They pretended to be something and to be someone that they were not to the entire church but ultimately to God. The old Bible scholar John Stott said they wanted the credit and the prestige for sacrificial generosity without the inconvenience of it. Stott also says their motive in giving was not to relieve the poor but to boast their own ego. John MacArthur says the overt sin was lying by publicly pretending to have given all the proceeds of the sale of their property. That sin was but the outward manifestation. However, he says the deeper, more devastating sin was hypocrisy based on a desire for spiritual status.

So the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was the sin of spiritual pretense or hypocrisy. They deliberately tried to deceive the church into thinking they were generous, sacrificial, and they really cared about the needs of others. They devised a scheme so as to steal the spiritual respect and prestige in the church that they did not deserve. Hypocrisy is all about hypocrisy. Now before we move on, I want to point out one more detail and make some application. The name Ananias has a meaning. Ananias means God is gracious and the name Sapphira has a meaning. That name means beautiful.

So according to the meaning of their names, Ananias should have had a God-like graciousness and Sapphira should have been a beautiful person. But actually, they were the opposite. They were the opposite. And look at the lesson here. The spiritual hypocrite has an outward face, an outward facade of godliness, and spiritual beauty. But behind the facade is nothing but the sin of selfishness, greed, hypocrisy, and pretense. I think about people that I have known through the years that because of time and the work of God, they have been revealed to be hypocrites. And I think about the pretense they had.

I think about an individual that I went to church with years ago. And he had several masks he would wear. To be a hypocrite means to wear a mask. Well, this individual had several masks. He always liked to quote scripture and talk about scripture very loudly. As a matter of fact, he preached at times and he liked to preach boldly. He liked to brag about how he shared the gospel publicly. He liked to brag really and be loud about all of his spiritual exploits and who he was. But behind the scenes, behind the facade, it turned out that he was mean, unspiritual, ungodly, abusive to his family. He was a hypocrite.

And to add to that lesson, we must see just how serious spiritual hypocrisy truly is. All throughout the gospels, we see that Jesus repeatedly exposed and condemned the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders. And he warned his disciples over and over and over and over to be on guard against their influence. Obviously, the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders could have affected those disciples. And the lesson for us is this. We must be on guard against two kinds of religious hypocrite. I'm going to name them. First, the religious hypocrite within. Second, the religious hypocrite without.

We must see that there is a religious hypocrite lurking inside us. We must see that there is a religious hypocrite lurking inside us. And if we do not stay on guard, if we do not crucify our own flesh and our own feelings, we can become a hypocrite just like we see within a nice and safari. And we must see that the religious hypocrite can come into our church and sit in our pews. And we cannot allow hypocrisy to rule and reign in the church. That's an awful sin. And there's no person who is immune to this. This can come up in an elder's life, a pastor's life, a small group leader's life, anybody's life. So let's move on.

So we have seen the sin of an anos and safari. And then number two, I want us to see the response of Peter. I want us to see the response of Peter. We see this in verse three and four. Let's read those verses. But Peter said, "And anos, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man, but to God." Now, there are quite a few things that we need to see here.

Actually, we need to see four things in Peter's response. First of all, notice Peter's discernment. Now, this is short, but it needs to be seen. Here we see that Peter did not fall for their scheme. He had some kind of a spiritual hunch, but it was more. He had some kind of a discernment, but it was more. Somehow, some way, he knew three things. First, he knew what an anos and his wife said and did publicly. He knew it was a lie. Second, he knew what went on in their spiritual minds and in their hearts. Third, he knew in its totality what had happened. So we see Peter's discernment, but it was more.

He knew totally what was going on, and I tell you, that was a work of the Spirit of God in his life. Then second, notice Satan's temptation. Here Peter confronted Ananias with the reality that Satan had put this temptation in their hearts and minds. The amplified says, but Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and secretly keep back for yourself some of the proceeds from the sale of the land? And what we see here is this. Satan himself put these thoughts and these desires into their hearts.

He tempted them with this scheme to gain materially and spiritually, and he filled their hearts with all of these things. In my study and in my preparation, I have thought about all of the thoughts that must have gone on into their minds and all of the conversation they must have had all through what Satan deposited in their hearts and minds. I love something that the Bible scholar Jim Boyce points out here. He says that Satan was outraged at what was going on in this church. Remember, we've seen what chapters one to four have been all about. A great, wonderful church. Boyce says Satan was outraged at what was going on in this church.

Boyce said that Satan said something like this in his mind. I guess Boyce is using his Holy Spirit imagination like I do. And he says this, that Satan had something like this going on in his mind. I will turn all this generosity and sacrificial giving all around, and I will use it to my advantage to corrupt the church from the inside. I will take all this generosity and sacrificial giving, and I will use it to tempt these two into infiltrating the church with the sin of spiritual pretense and hypocrisy.

And I believe that Boyce is showing us that Satan took good things in the church, and he turned those things around to bring a bad thing into the church. You see? And there are two lessons here. If Satan cannot destroy the church through outward persecution, then he will resort to try and destroy the church through inward corruption. A question or two here. Now think with it. Do we face any persecution that could destroy our church? Do we? We've addressed this, chapters 1 to 4. We have seen that God providentially has not put us in a place where we face persecution. Next question.

If persecution is not a problem for us, and it's not, could or would Satan do the very same thing that we see here in Acts 5, and that is to try to destroy our church from the inside? Could Satan take a good thing in our church, a strength in our church, and turn it around so as to be used for some kind of an internal corruption? Look, folks, if this happened to the church in Jerusalem that was pastor by the apostles, it certainly can happen to us. If this happened to the church in Jerusalem where the Spirit of God was moving in an unusual way, that can happen to us.

Now I know this will take some time, but I want to point out a warning here that Jim Boyce Gibbs is too good for me to leave out. He says, "If we go through periods of special blessing, as these early Christians had, personally or in our church, we can expect Satan or one of his demons to attack us. It is because Satan does not want the church of Jesus Christ to thrive, if you were only going through the motions of serving Jesus, Satan will not worry about you very much.

If you are not attempting anything important for God, if you are not breaking new ground, not witnessing, not serving in any particular effective way, Satan will probably leave you alone. On the other hand, if you really are trying to do something for God, if your church is effective, if you have a strong missions program, if you have people out witnessing, if you're trying to embody the gospel in social programs that minister to the needs of real people and demonstrate the gospel and the love of Jesus, Satan will attack you. You will have to be on your guard against him." And my question is this, is Jim Boyce right in his correction?

Yes, that is very good insight. That's why I felt like it needed to be read. So what should we do? We should be sober minded here. We should understand and believe that Satan can attack and most likely will attack. And I think that we are right where he wants us to be if we think we are immune from any of these things. And then third, notice the sin of Ananias, here we see that Peter confronts Ananias with one sin. He did not tell him that owning the land, the property was a sin. We've already covered that. He did not tell him that selling the property was a sin. We've already covered that.

In verse four, he confronts him with the fact that he lied to God. Yes, he and his wife lied to the church. Yes, he and his wife lied to the church leaders, but ultimately Peter points out that they lied to God. And notice what this tells us. Yes, we can identify all of the different sins that Ananias and his wife committed. And we can even guess and discern motives. But this tells us that Peter saw that in the middle of all of those sins was the ultimate sin of lying to God. And he says two times that he lied to God in verse three and verse four. Now question, is not all hypocrisy and spiritual pretense not lying to God first?

Is not hypocrisy and spiritual pretense not lying to God first? Another question, how is it that we lie to God? Maybe in small group we communicate that we have studied the lesson a lot more than we really have. Maybe we make people believe that we are faithful to our read through the Bible plan that's tucked away in the pages of our Bible. Maybe we pretend that we do not struggle with the sin that's talked about in small groups or in a meeting with a brother or sister in the hall of the church. Maybe we cover up a sin in our lives instead of confessing that sin to a brother or a sister or a small group leader.

And by the way I can commit any of those sins. And then fourth we see the responsibility of Ananias. Now right here I want us to see Ananias's responsibility in two ways. First notice that this confrontation from Peter he confronts Ananias and not his wife. Not Ananias and his wife. Now later he confronts his wife but right here he confronts Ananias. Now here I want to ask a probing question. Could it be that Peter confronted Ananias first because he saw Ananias as the leader of his home therefore being responsible for all of this? A question, who is to be the spiritual leader in our home? The wife or the husband? Or the children?

Who's to be the spiritual leader in our home? Luke Church God expects the husband to be the spiritual leader of the home and the watchdog of the home. And if a sin or bad doctrine or anything unhealthy comes into the home God looks to the man first. God looks to the man first. And I will say this to you men if there is a sin in your wife's life that you know is there and you don't help her address it well then you are responsible. And I have known men even godly men who allowed their wives to stay in sin stay in sin and somehow some way they just did not address it.

And if that's you sir you're not being near the man of God in your home that you think you are. So Peter saw Ananias as responsible for these things because he was the leader and to be the leader of the home. But second the second way Peter addresses this responsibility is found in the verses. Notice that in verse 3 Peter reveals that it was Satan that filled Ananias heart with these things. But that is as far as he went with Satan. Right after and throughout the verses it is plain to see that Peter held Ananias personally responsible for his actions. And later we will see that Peter held Sapphira personally responsible for her actions.

Now notice what he says to Ananias in verse 4 and look at how Peter assigns personal responsibility to Ananias. The Amplified says in verse 4 and after it was sold was the money not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this act of hypocrisy and deceit in your heart? You have not simply lied to people but to God. Who does he hold responsible? Listen to the verse verse 4 in the New American. While it remained unsold did it not retain 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.

Now what is the point I'm making here? Yes, Satan tempted Ananias. Yes, there is such a thing as spiritual warfare and they experienced it. But clearly Peter held Ananias 100% responsible for his actions. And if Peter held Ananias 100% responsible for his actions then God did because God inspired Luke to write these things. And the lesson for us here is this. As believers we take the responsibility for our sin and sinfulness. We don't pass the buck. We don't shift blame. We do not deflect our sidestep.

One of the marks of humility in a believer is when they are dealing with sin, personal sin, one of the marks of humility is they don't pass the buck. They don't shift the blame. They don't deflect. They don't sidestep. They say it was me, all me. So here we see Peter's response. Under the leadership and the goddess of the Spirit of God, Peter confronted Ananias. He revealed that Satan had filled their hearts with these sins and schemes but he confronted Ananias with the fact that he had committed the one sin that led to all of these sins. He had lied to God and he was responsible for all of these things.

Now before I move on I think it would be good for us to ask another question or two. Would it be best for us to reveal our sin or for God to reveal our sin? Would it be best for us to reveal our sin or for God to reveal our sin? Think with me here 1 John 1, 8 to 10 says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar." Oh that sounds familiar. We make him a liar and his word is not in us.

And what we learn here is this, if we confess our sins as believers there is forgiveness and cleansing from God. But if we say we have no sin, we trick ourselves and we prove that we are full of lies. And if we say we have no sin when we do, we call God a liar and we prove that his truth is not in us. And I'll add to that by taking us to James 5 16. James 5 16 says, "Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." Here we see the power of confessing our sin among brothers. Brothers with brothers, sisters with sisters.

Let me repeat that. Here we see the power of confessing our sins among brothers and sisters. If we confess our sins one to another and pray for one another, there is spiritual healing at work. And this should go on in small groups. You know one of the joys that I have is when I hear of brothers and sisters within small groups getting together with smaller groups. Now we shouldn't have cliques, but it's natural and normal for us in the church to form smaller groups and we should meet with those smaller groups.

Yes to pray for one another, yes to encourage one another, yes to study the word of God together, but that is the perfect place for us to do what? Confess our sins one to another and I go back. Would it be best for us to reveal our own sin or for God to reveal our sin? Now at this point I want to pause in our verses. I said this earlier. Next week we will cover the judgment of God upon Anson Sophia in verses 5 to 10 and then in verse 11 we will cover the work of God in this church as a result of all of these things. Now tonight I want to close by asking a question. Were these two born again believers?

Were Anson, Sophia, Christians or were they lost people that had infiltrated the church? Think about it. You might not know it but scholars and commentators and Christians debate that. But think about it. I want to close out tonight by saying that I believe that both Anson, Sophia, were true believers in sin, yes. Judged of God, yes, but I believe they were true believers who committed what is called the sin unto death. And right here I want to offer my reasons why. Now I picked up these reasons in some study. It kind of made it my own. First notice they were included among those who had believed.

In chapter 4 verse 32 we see the group of the family of believers, you see? And we have every reason to believe that both Anson, Sophia were a part of that group. Look how Luke connected them with all that took place in chapter 4 verses 32 to 37. Sometimes chapter and verse divisions are good and sometimes they are bad. Chapter 4 verses 32 to 37 gives us the description of the church and it goes right into Anson, Sophia. Second, they were involved with the person in the work of the Holy Spirit. Peter tells us that they lied to the Holy Spirit. So this seems to indicate that they had a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Well, who is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is God. Third, if they were not true believers, none of this teaching would make sense. Luke would have taught on the wheat and the tares or the sheep and the goats. He would have taught on lost people infiltrating the church and not sin in the sin of hypocrisy infiltrating the church. And then fourth, death can be a judgment upon a true believer. Yes, death can be a judgment upon a true believer. There are lots of times people will say, no judgment is upon the lost judgment is never upon the saved. But that's not what 1st John 5 16 says.

That verse says, if anyone sees a brother committing a sin, not leading to death, he shall ask and God will give him life to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death. I do not say that one should pray for that. Clearly, John says that if a brother can commit a sin that does not lead to death, therefore he indicates that a brother can commit a sin that does lead to death. And in case you're wondering if I'm off here, does anybody know how Moses died? Moses committed the sin unto death. Now, I close with the title again, and I close with the title and I want to make one last statement.

The title of the message, the infiltration of sin into the church. Now Webster defines infiltration as to enter or to become established gradually, usually for subversive purposes. And notice what we're learning here. Sin can infiltrate the church through believers so as to become established, but clearly and certainly for subversive purposes. So the title of the message, the infiltration of sin into the church.