I was wondering how you were going to explain the passage in the last video and I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one. Good stuff! Keep it coming 😊👍
This one has troubled me every time I read it! Glad I'm not the only one confused. One of those times I wish Peter had been more verbose about what the heck was going on. Thanks for your insight Matt. You've given me more questions to puzzle through.
Thanks Matt. I appreciate your honesty. It is truly difficult to understand. DAILY, I hear people say "Why did God allow this or do that?" God is God and we are NOT! 💃
Who says this hasn't happened even today? Our Father is the same yesterday today and forever. The same supernatural miracles and judgement as in now as what was written is happening and has happened. I could do with a 20 minute-ish bible study but it's been three days and I'm still binge watching your videos. Thanks for perspective
well done. it was a heart issue...the core of Christianity....and an authoritative move to further the position of apostleship that's all any reckoning of us against God is the same as saying "don't take back those souls that belong to you"....we make assumptions of their final destination because we think we are God and/or we think God has to do things only by the limited knowledge we have of Him
It looks clear that they were not punished for not giving all. No one is making any point that everything must be given. It is totally voluntary on who would give what. They attempted to lie to God. That is why the punishment happened.
Interesting take on this passage. I guess I always just assumed that where God's presence is being very visibly/physically manifested through miraculous signs and healing and blessings through the Holy Spirit, that with that comes severe judgement with occurances of disobedience.
I think what is clear here is that Ananias and his wife specifically conspired to withhold money they had received. What is also clear is that "From time to time, people would sell land or houses and then bring it to the apostles who would distribute it to those who had need"In previous verses, its mentioned that God's Grace was so powerful among them that there was no needy person. Using context, to me, it would seem to me that Ananias and his Wife had sold this land because there was a need in the church, but then tried to withhold some of that profit for themselves. By not forfeiting the entire price of the sale, they were in some way showing that they didn't have faith that God would supply their need. Worse then that, they weren't honest about it and tried to lie, directly to Peter and to God... and he was made an example of. As you said, I would never judge someone with Death, but Im also not God... and there is a point to be made in making an example of someone who would, so early in the church's history, try to deceive them.
One thought came to my mind: According to Peter's words Ananias and Sapphira knew exactly that they were actively betraying God. It does not say that they withheld money because they didn't fully trust God. While the actions stay the same, I wonder if this difference is significant. What are your thoughts on this? (A few more weeks and I'll have caught up to your lastest episodes...)
+Aw4thar Thanks for watching and for the comment. I appreciate both greatly. It's an odd incident because God isn't overtly highlighted as having agency in this passage, but it's hard to imagine he didn't. So what we have to go off of are Peter's words and what happened. We know they lied and we know they died. Beyond that it gets trickier. I think that there is an element of disbelief on their part (especially when compared with their contemporaries) because if they were in complete belief they wouldn't have pulled what they did. Ultimately we don't know the anatomy of their thoughts, but it seems pretty certain that this didn't set a predictable precedent whether lying or disbelief was the central issue.
+The Ten Minute Bible Hour I believe that Ananias and Sapphira had a full knowledge of what was correct and what was incorrect in this verse. They choose to use their agency contrary to God with that full knowledge. You mentioned that "if they were in complete belief they wouldn't have pulled what they did". Yes, if they were perfect they wouldn't have. I would assert that it was exactly that, they had the full knowledge and chose contrarily, which was the large difference in this case. God may have used this as a learning opportunity for the church as well. In the end, I like you don't fully understand God. If I am completely incorrect, God does not ceases to be God. There is a lot of stuff I don't understand and I will have to wait until the day when we receive more knowledge regarding this from God.
It appears that God's judgement and discipline to His church is seen again in the church of Corinth. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and *some have died*. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But *when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.* 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 And concerning the discipline of the Lord: 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. 6 *For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”* Hebrews 12:5-6 or again: 11 My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline or be weary of his reproof, 12 for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights. Proverbs 3:11-12
I know this may not make sense rate off the bat, but I think I may have found an answer to the problem of Acts 5:1-11, and it might be something worth looking into if you are interested. I think that answer may be found in John 12:42-50, which I believe it might have something to do as well with Deuteronomy 18:19. Just something to chew on for a while.
1:03 Is it possible it was sort of both? i.e. they were both old and/or ill, they got healed by the holy spirit, they did this, and the healing was taken away?
Thanks for being honest. It’s okay not to understand everything I’ve learnt - and even when my mind disagrees with Gods ways my heart understands that his thoughts are not mine but higher and his ways are higher and when I have that conversation with myself it always ends with - but God is right and I just don’t get it and it’s okay because I know he is just and perfect and I’m okay with that I will still follow God
I don't really understand the issue here. It says throughout that the wages of sin are death and the couple broke the 9th commandment by being dishonest. I don't see why this is a hugely disturbing and uncomfortable passage. The couple knew the law, knew the penalty for breaking the law, broke the law anyway, and suffered the penalty. It seems straightforward to me. I guess maybe I am lacking compassion, but I do assume after dying they did go to heaven. They were Christians after all, they just sinned and paid a price for it as it served God's purpose to use them to strengthen the church. I assume Ananias and Sapphira are alive and well and glorying in God's presence right now.
I think part of the reason was to remind people that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He killed people in the Old Testament for just touching the Arc of the Covenant. Then he kills this couple for lying in church. The sacred is not to be messed around with, and God's love is matched only by his wrath.
I have a slightly different interpretation - specifically related to question 6 and why this is even in the bible. Simply put this is in the bible to show, yet again, that the appearance of doing something and actually doing something are not the same. Weather it is the commandment against graven images or Jesus decrying the actions of the public prayer of the hypocrites, the symbol of a thing, the performance of a thing, is not the true thing. In the previous chapter we see that people are selling their possessions and giving the proceeds to the Paul and the Church leaders, but ultimately it is not this symbol that matters to God. What matters to God is what is in your heart NOT how pious you may appear. The point of the punishment in this light is to show that it is not about giving money to the Church but to show that some people may be inspired by the spirit of God to do so. This also reduces the band wagon effect. There are all these thousands of inspired early Christians, some people - much like today - just go along because it's what everyone else is doing, but that doesn't really count. Putting on my metaphor hat - the death of Ananias and Sapphira may have been put in this scene to indicate that, even if they had lived out their lives, it was AT THAT MOMENT they chose to abandon God's gift of overcoming death. Did God strike down Ananias and Sapphira actively, or show everyone the consequences of behaving superficially? Is that even a distinction in the eyes of a being that exists apart from time? ... but I digress.
They were communal see - Act 2:v44 And all who believed were together, having everything in common. 45 They began selling their property and possessions and sharing them with all, as any had need. - Act 4:v32 Now the whole group of those who believed was one in heart and mind. No one would say anything he owned was his own, but they had everything in common. - Act 4:v34 No one among them was needy, for all who were owners of lands or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds 35 and set them at the feet of the emissaries. And the proceeds were distributed according to the need each one had. - See the couple wasn't too much into it evidently. See different culture and customs we are not like this today.
Enjoyed that Matt but I suggest we've missed the punch-line: "...Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit..." This was a deliberate Satanic attack on the authority of the Holy Spirit who inaugurated and empowers the real Church. 1 Cor 12 To this day we fail to appreciate the seriousness of ignoring the authority of God's Holy Spirit, seen clearly in the splitting of the Church initially into clergy/laity followed by the fracture into denominations - hardly 'keeping the unity of the Spirit' in Eph 4:3.
Kyle Hornsey Thanks as always for weighing in. I think the subjects you bring up are good conversations to have, but in the early going in Acts 5, the church wasn't yet dealing with those issues. Questions about clergy and laity as well as denominational fragmentation are subjects for consideration in light of Jesus' emphasis on the unity of his followers, but those concepts really aren't present in the context of the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
The Ten Minute Bible Hour I agree Matt but you asked why is this in the Scriptures. The key issue is: this is a SATANIC attack on the AUTHORITY of the HOLY SPIRIT. I was just offering modern day evidence of this.
Kyle Hornsey Ahh sure, I'm tracking now. And on that modern example we'll probably disagree. I don't view denominations as necessarily evil or a failure, rather I view them as demonstration that the gospel transcends cultures, preferences, and presuppositions. I know not everyone sees that the way I do. As to your larger point, it is interesting that death is the endgame of both instances Luke mentions that involve Satan directly influencing people who screwed stuff up. It's also interesting that people don't continue to be judged like that for the same failures since.
Did God kill him or does it seem that this guy died from shame, guilt, and depression (similar to Judas)? Once called out, his will to live had to be a negative value.
When Jesus killed those people, I wonder if he killed them eternally. While Jesus showed no mercy in the flesh, I recognize that all those reasons you gave for Jesus demonstration of lack of Mercy definitely apply. Could it be that your explanation takes on an additional aspect. Jesus was trying to demonstrate to these particularly unfaithful people what in the flesh would happen to them if others failed as they did.
You keep saying that God denied grace for these to. The passage never says that. Yes, he killed them but that's not a denial of grace. He still forgave their wrongs, and that is grace.
You do realize they sold their own property and the procreeds was their own money from selling their own property? See the Jewish disciples of Messiah Yeshua were communal, some may think this is like socialism or communisn, but communal means they shared everything. See observe - Act 2:v44 And all who believed were together, having everything in common. 45 They began selling their property and possessions and sharing them with all, as any had need. - Act 4:v32 Now the whole group of those who believed was one in heart and mind. No one would say anything he owned was his own, but they had everything in common. - Act 4:v34 No one among them was needy, for all who were owners of lands or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds 35 and set them at the feet of the emissaries. And the proceeds were distributed according to the need each one had. (TLV) - Act 5:v1 On the other hand, a man named Ananias together with his wife, Sapphira, sold a property. 2 He kept back some of the proceeds, with his wife’s full knowledge, and brought part of it and set it at the feet of the emissaries. - See this troubles me, because today this is like offering a offering and deciding to not pay the full amount agreed apond, but acting as you did so then they say you lied against the Holy Spirit, or God so you drop dead for not offering your full offering. Though in the verse 3 of Acts 5 Peter says Hananyah lied to the Holy Spirit , but in verse 2 he says nothing just offers the proceeds. See these people are keeping some of their own money from selling their own property, so they seem to not agree with the churches communal nature. See owning property or having possesion is not a sin according to the Torah. Then in the four Gospels they leave out the tenth commandment, what reminds me of what Flavius Jospehus wrote about the Essenes concerning being communal not owning property or possesions but sharing everything. See the man wanted to keep some of his own money, we are captialist today and don't like communism or socialism. Though assume it must have been a vow, he vowed to pay all the proceeds and went back on his vow to pay all of the proceeds. So he would lied to God by not paying his vow. It is only like a vow, vow offerings are mentioned in the Torah. See it is not really greed, when they became disciples of Messiah Yeshua they were told to sell their houses or properties and possesions, it is not a sin to own things. Now today people would never sell their houses or properties so they could give the apostls money so they could share with all Christian believers in need(see communal).
One question you didn't ask, but comes often up when speaking about this event is: Were the couple Christians or not? Interesting is the study of words Luke uses to introduce new people into his book. Here he speaks about a "...'man' named Ananias", same when Simon the magician get's introduced (ch.8) or Cornelius (ch.10). But when he introduces Christians he calls them disciples. E.g. in Ch. 9 he introduces Ananias and Tabitha this way.
One day I say, "I want God to be fair!"
Then I read this story.
"On second thought, Please God, give me Grace!!!!"
Matt, I so appreciate your down to earth and helpful attitude. Thanks so much for doing all this.
I was wondering how you were going to explain the passage in the last video and I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one.
Good stuff! Keep it coming 😊👍
Martin Hurley Thanks Martin. This one required a degree of seriousness, but the next one I'm working on is a lot of fun.
Thank you for being willing to admit you don't know why God does stuff. Sometimes it's nice to know that we can't know the mind of an all knowing God.
This one has troubled me every time I read it! Glad I'm not the only one confused. One of those times I wish Peter had been more verbose about what the heck was going on. Thanks for your insight Matt. You've given me more questions to puzzle through.
Thanks Matt. I appreciate your honesty. It is truly difficult to understand. DAILY, I hear people say "Why did God allow this or do that?" God is God and we are NOT! 💃
Who says this hasn't happened even today? Our Father is the same yesterday today and forever. The same supernatural miracles and judgement as in now as what was written is happening and has happened. I could do with a 20 minute-ish bible study but it's been three days and I'm still binge watching your videos. Thanks for perspective
Thank you for spending time and effort on these videos, and for being real about the challenging parts of scripture.
well done. it was a heart issue...the core of Christianity....and an authoritative move to further the position of apostleship that's all
any reckoning of us against God is the same as saying "don't take back those souls that belong to you"....we make assumptions of their final destination because we think we are God and/or we think God has to do things only by the limited knowledge we have of Him
Digging the Wild at Heart field manual on the book shelf. I agree that God put the smack down on them. Very well thought out, keep up the good work.
+Meerkatonfire Thank you, and very perceptive. I've wondered if anyone picks up on what books are back there...
It looks clear that they were not punished for not giving all. No one is making any point that everything must be given. It is totally voluntary on who would give what.
They attempted to lie to God. That is why the punishment happened.
Interesting take on this passage. I guess I always just assumed that where God's presence is being very visibly/physically manifested through miraculous signs and healing and blessings through the Holy Spirit, that with that comes severe judgement with occurances of disobedience.
I think what is clear here is that Ananias and his wife specifically conspired to withhold money they had received. What is also clear is that "From time to time, people would sell land or houses and then bring it to the apostles who would distribute it to those who had need"In previous verses, its mentioned that God's Grace was so powerful among them that there was no needy person.
Using context, to me, it would seem to me that Ananias and his Wife had sold this land because there was a need in the church, but then tried to withhold some of that profit for themselves. By not forfeiting the entire price of the sale, they were in some way showing that they didn't have faith that God would supply their need. Worse then that, they weren't honest about it and tried to lie, directly to Peter and to God... and he was made an example of.
As you said, I would never judge someone with Death, but Im also not God... and there is a point to be made in making an example of someone who would, so early in the church's history, try to deceive them.
One thought came to my mind:
According to Peter's words Ananias and Sapphira knew exactly that they were actively betraying God. It does not say that they withheld money because they didn't fully trust God.
While the actions stay the same, I wonder if this difference is significant.
What are your thoughts on this?
(A few more weeks and I'll have caught up to your lastest episodes...)
+Aw4thar Thanks for watching and for the comment. I appreciate both greatly.
It's an odd incident because God isn't overtly highlighted as having agency in this passage, but it's hard to imagine he didn't. So what we have to go off of are Peter's words and what happened. We know they lied and we know they died. Beyond that it gets trickier. I think that there is an element of disbelief on their part (especially when compared with their contemporaries) because if they were in complete belief they wouldn't have pulled what they did.
Ultimately we don't know the anatomy of their thoughts, but it seems pretty certain that this didn't set a predictable precedent whether lying or disbelief was the central issue.
+The Ten Minute Bible Hour I believe that Ananias and Sapphira had a full knowledge of what was correct and what was incorrect in this verse. They choose to use their agency contrary to God with that full knowledge.
You mentioned that "if they were in complete belief they wouldn't have pulled what they did". Yes, if they were perfect they wouldn't have. I would assert that it was exactly that, they had the full knowledge and chose contrarily, which was the large difference in this case. God may have used this as a learning opportunity for the church as well.
In the end, I like you don't fully understand God. If I am completely incorrect, God does not ceases to be God. There is a lot of stuff I don't understand and I will have to wait until the day when we receive more knowledge regarding this from God.
Old video, new apperciation. Thanks for doing what you do.
It appears that God's judgement and discipline to His church is seen again in the church of Corinth.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and *some have died*. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But *when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.* 1 Corinthians 11:27-32
And concerning the discipline of the Lord:
5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6 *For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”* Hebrews 12:5-6
or again:
11 My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline
or be weary of his reproof,
12 for the Lord reproves him whom he loves,
as a father the son in whom he delights. Proverbs 3:11-12
Ananias and Sapphira's character flaws allow God to demonstrate that His character is never flawed.
#whynobuddyjesuspic?
Lindsey M I can't disagree.
#whynopicturesperiod?
I know this may not make sense rate off the bat, but I think I may have found an answer to the problem of Acts 5:1-11, and it might be something worth looking into if you are interested. I think that answer may be found in John 12:42-50, which I believe it might have something to do as well with Deuteronomy 18:19. Just something to chew on for a while.
1:03 Is it possible it was sort of both? i.e. they were both old and/or ill, they got healed by the holy spirit, they did this, and the healing was taken away?
+IamGrimalkin Could be. There's no specific evidence in the text, but that's the challenge of this passage in general I suppose.
Thanks for being honest. It’s okay not to understand everything I’ve learnt - and even when my mind disagrees with Gods ways my heart understands that his thoughts are not mine but higher and his ways are higher and when I have that conversation with myself it always ends with - but God is right and I just don’t get it and it’s okay because I know he is just and perfect and I’m okay with that I will still follow God
I don't really understand the issue here. It says throughout that the wages of sin are death and the couple broke the 9th commandment by being dishonest. I don't see why this is a hugely disturbing and uncomfortable passage. The couple knew the law, knew the penalty for breaking the law, broke the law anyway, and suffered the penalty. It seems straightforward to me. I guess maybe I am lacking compassion, but I do assume after dying they did go to heaven. They were Christians after all, they just sinned and paid a price for it as it served God's purpose to use them to strengthen the church. I assume Ananias and Sapphira are alive and well and glorying in God's presence right now.
I think part of the reason was to remind people that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He killed people in the Old Testament for just touching the Arc of the Covenant. Then he kills this couple for lying in church. The sacred is not to be messed around with, and God's love is matched only by his wrath.
I have a slightly different interpretation - specifically related to question 6 and why this is even in the bible.
Simply put this is in the bible to show, yet again, that the appearance of doing something and actually doing something are not the same.
Weather it is the commandment against graven images or Jesus decrying the actions of the public prayer of the hypocrites, the symbol of a thing, the performance of a thing, is not the true thing. In the previous chapter we see that people are selling their possessions and giving the proceeds to the Paul and the Church leaders, but ultimately it is not this symbol that matters to God. What matters to God is what is in your heart NOT how pious you may appear. The point of the punishment in this light is to show that it is not about giving money to the Church but to show that some people may be inspired by the spirit of God to do so.
This also reduces the band wagon effect. There are all these thousands of inspired early Christians, some people - much like today - just go along because it's what everyone else is doing, but that doesn't really count.
Putting on my metaphor hat - the death of Ananias and Sapphira may have been put in this scene to indicate that, even if they had lived out their lives, it was AT THAT MOMENT they chose to abandon God's gift of overcoming death.
Did God strike down Ananias and Sapphira actively, or show everyone the consequences of behaving superficially? Is that even a distinction in the eyes of a being that exists apart from time?
... but I digress.
They were communal see
-
Act 2:v44 And all who believed were together, having everything in common.
45 They began selling their property and possessions and sharing them with all, as any had need.
-
Act 4:v32 Now the whole group of those who believed was one in heart and mind. No one would say anything he owned was his own, but they had everything in common.
-
Act 4:v34 No one among them was needy, for all who were owners of lands or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds
35 and set them at the feet of the emissaries. And the proceeds were distributed according to the need each one had.
-
See the couple wasn't too much into it evidently. See different culture and customs we are not like this today.
Enjoyed that Matt but I suggest we've missed the punch-line:
"...Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit..."
This was a deliberate Satanic attack on the authority of the Holy Spirit who inaugurated and empowers the real Church. 1 Cor 12
To this day we fail to appreciate the seriousness of ignoring the authority of God's Holy Spirit, seen clearly in the splitting of the Church initially into clergy/laity followed by the fracture into denominations - hardly 'keeping the unity of the Spirit' in Eph 4:3.
Kyle Hornsey Thanks as always for weighing in. I think the subjects you bring up are good conversations to have, but in the early going in Acts 5, the church wasn't yet dealing with those issues. Questions about clergy and laity as well as denominational fragmentation are subjects for consideration in light of Jesus' emphasis on the unity of his followers, but those concepts really aren't present in the context of the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
The Ten Minute Bible Hour I agree Matt but you asked why is this in the Scriptures. The key issue is: this is a SATANIC attack on the AUTHORITY of the HOLY SPIRIT. I was just offering modern day evidence of this.
Kyle Hornsey Ahh sure, I'm tracking now. And on that modern example we'll probably disagree. I don't view denominations as necessarily evil or a failure, rather I view them as demonstration that the gospel transcends cultures, preferences, and presuppositions. I know not everyone sees that the way I do. As to your larger point, it is interesting that death is the endgame of both instances Luke mentions that involve Satan directly influencing people who screwed stuff up. It's also interesting that people don't continue to be judged like that for the same failures since.
Did God kill him or does it seem that this guy died from shame, guilt, and depression (similar to Judas)? Once called out, his will to live had to be a negative value.
When Jesus killed those people, I wonder if he killed them eternally. While Jesus showed no mercy in the flesh, I recognize that all those reasons you gave for Jesus demonstration of lack of Mercy definitely apply. Could it be that your explanation takes on an additional aspect. Jesus was trying to demonstrate to these particularly unfaithful people what in the flesh would happen to them if others failed as they did.
You keep saying that God denied grace for these to. The passage never says that. Yes, he killed them but that's not a denial of grace. He still forgave their wrongs, and that is grace.
I just subscribed to your channel :)
Pople BackyardFarm And I appreciate it greatly!
You do realize they sold their own property and the procreeds was their own money from selling their own property? See the Jewish disciples of Messiah Yeshua were communal, some may think this is like socialism or communisn, but communal means they shared everything. See observe
-
Act 2:v44 And all who believed were together, having everything in common.
45 They began selling their property and possessions and sharing them with all, as any had need.
-
Act 4:v32 Now the whole group of those who believed was one in heart and mind. No one would say anything he owned was his own, but they had everything in common.
-
Act 4:v34 No one among them was needy, for all who were owners of lands or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds
35 and set them at the feet of the emissaries. And the proceeds were distributed according to the need each one had. (TLV)
-
Act 5:v1 On the other hand, a man named Ananias together with his wife, Sapphira, sold a property.
2 He kept back some of the proceeds, with his wife’s full knowledge, and brought part of it and set it at the feet of the emissaries.
-
See this troubles me, because today this is like offering a offering and deciding to not pay the full amount agreed apond, but acting as you did so then they say you lied against the Holy Spirit, or God so you drop dead for not offering your full offering. Though in the verse 3 of Acts 5 Peter says Hananyah lied to the Holy Spirit , but in verse 2 he says nothing just offers the proceeds. See these people are keeping some of their own money from selling their own property, so they seem to not agree with the churches communal nature. See owning property or having possesion is not a sin according to the Torah. Then in the four Gospels they leave out the tenth commandment, what reminds me of what Flavius Jospehus wrote about the Essenes concerning being communal not owning property or possesions but sharing everything. See the man wanted to keep some of his own money, we are captialist today and don't like communism or socialism. Though assume it must have been a vow, he vowed to pay all the proceeds and went back on his vow to pay all of the proceeds. So he would lied to God by not paying his vow. It is only like a vow, vow offerings are mentioned in the Torah.
See it is not really greed, when they became disciples of Messiah Yeshua they were told to sell their houses or properties and possesions, it is not a sin to own things. Now today people would never sell their houses or properties so they could give the apostls money so they could share with all Christian believers in need(see communal).
best one yet
One question you didn't ask, but comes often up when speaking about this event is: Were the couple Christians or not?
Interesting is the study of words Luke uses to introduce new people into his book.
Here he speaks about a "...'man' named Ananias", same when Simon the magician get's introduced (ch.8) or Cornelius (ch.10).
But when he introduces Christians he calls them disciples. E.g. in Ch. 9 he introduces Ananias and Tabitha this way.
That's a great thought on a possible clue.