Ananias and Sapphira

[2] As told at the beginning of Acts chapter 5, Ananias and Sapphira, following Barnabas's example, also sold their land but secretly withheld a portion of the proceeds.

[3] The fourth-century archbishop John Chrysostom alludes to and then dismisses the idea that Peter could be held responsible for the couple's death.

[6][7][8][verification needed] Darrell Bock concludes that the episode emphasises the seriousness of sin, as well as the graciousness of God who often defers judgment.

Our familiarity with religiously sanctioned violence makes it difficult to laugh, even if we understand that this scene may not be offered as serious, definitive theology.

"[10] Marc Pernot, pastor at the Protestant L'Oratoire du Louvre in Paris,[11] sees the story as a critique of the shortcomings of Peter and the early Church.

More specifically on the second point, Reidhead commented that the introduction of sin would destroy the unity that the early believers had in the Holy Spirit, and would thus remove God's blessing on the body.

There must not be any ulterior motives in an offering made to God, such as desiring material gain, fame, or praise of man for oneself.

[15] Philosopher Edward Feser argues in a self-published blog that the account constitutes a biblical justification of capital punishment, whereby Peter either declares or carries out the sentence, which is then immediately inflicted by the Holy Spirit.