1 E.g. Barrett, C. K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 262Google Scholar; Haenchen, Ernst, The Acts of the Apostles (trans. Noble, B., Shinn, G., and Anderson, H.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 24Google Scholar.

2 E.g. Theissen, G., ‘Urchristlicher Liebeskommunismus: Zum “Sitz im Leben” des Topos ἅπαντα κοινά in Apg 2,44 und 4,32’, Texts and Documents: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. Fornberg, T. and Hellholm, D.; Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1995) 689-712Google Scholar; Pervo, R. I., Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009) 130-5Google Scholar; D. R. McCabe calls the story an example of ‘severe punitive retribution’ (‘How to Kill Things with Words: Ananias and Sapphira Under the Apostolic-Prophetic Speech-Act of Divine Judgment’ [PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2008] 262). McCabe's dissertation is the most recent book-length treatment of this pericope. Explaining the story in terms of a ‘prophetic speech-act’, McCabe argues that God kills the couple through the voice of Peter to preserve the ‘divine economy’ and ‘internal unity’ of the group portrayed by Luke–Acts. Thus the story is meant to provoke ‘a reverent fear of the God who protected the sanctity of this messianic community’ (260).

3 E.g. Weinfeld, M., The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986)Google Scholar; Havelaar, H., ‘Hellenistic Parallels to Acts 5.1-11 and the Problem of Conflicting Interpretations’, JSNT 67 (1997) 63-82Google Scholar. Havelaar concludes that Acts 5.1-11 is a ‘stylized excommunication’ whereby the two blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

4 A. Weiser argued that the episode was pre-Lukan. Acts 5.1, 2b, and 8 represent a story about an early follower who was struck dead. The reason for this death was not known to Luke, but the evangelist fashioned the story after the Barnabas episode immediately prior to Acts 5 as a negative example of discipleship (Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel 1–12 [Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 5/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1982] 140). Barrett follows this line (Acts, 261-4). I am much less confident of reconstructing vv. 1, 2b, and 8 as representative of pre-Lukan tradition.

5 Fitzmyer, J., The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 31Google Scholar. He wonders why Peter does not give the two a chance to repent as Jesus advises in Luke 17.3-4.

6 Cf. Dunn, J. D. G., The Acts of the Apostles (Narrative Commentaries; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996) 64Google Scholar; Marguerat, Daniel, The First Christian Historian: Writing ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (trans. McKinney, K. et al. ; SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002) 172-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peterson, D. G., The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 209Google Scholar.

7 To avoid overgeneralization and misrepresentation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the group that collected/authored these texts, I will refer to this community as the ‘Yahad’ throughout.

8 Capper, B. J., ‘The Interpretation of Acts 5:4’, JSNT 119 (1983) 117-31Google Scholar; cf. the earlier suggestion of Trocmé, E., Le ‘Livre des Acts’ et l'histoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957) 196-8Google Scholar. He described a multilayered membership in Peter's following. As such ‘le cercle restreint’ that required communal wealth was voluntary inasmuch as Ananias and Sapphira could have enjoyed a comfortable autonomy of wealth on the second tier of membership.

9 Harrill, J. Albert, ‘Divine Judgment against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5.1-11): A Stock Scene of Perjury and Death’, JBL 130 (2011) 351-69Google Scholar.

10 Capper, ‘Interpretation’, 119 (emphasis original).

11 Harrill, ‘Divine Judgment’, 366.

12 I agree, however, with Havelaar that Capper's treatment ‘makes no attempt to explain the story in its entirety’ (‘Hellenistic Parallels’, 77). For a more recent nuance to Capper's thesis comparing the Yahad's (possible) understanding of usufruct, see Hamidovic, D., ‘La remarque énigmatique d'Ac 5,4 dans la légende d'Ananias et Saphira’, Biblica 86/3 (2005) 407-15Google Scholar.

13 By Shekinah, I mean the Lord's presence as rested on or near the Ark of the Covenant and especially associated with the Holy of Holies. Of course this moniker, made more popular in later Jewish texts, derives from the description of the Lord coming ‘to dwell’ [שכן] physically among Moses et al. in the vicinity of Sinai; e.g. Exod 24.16; 25.8; 29.45; 40.34-35.

14 Commentators generally consider the end of ch. 7 (perhaps including 8.1-3) a turning point in the narrative. Not only is the scope of the Ekklesia widened from Jerusalem to a larger area in ch. 8, but the central protagonists shift from Peter's community to Paul and his companions (e.g. Fitzmyer, Acts, 121; Johnson, Acts, 10). Others point to ch. 8 as a possible turning point (e.g. Longnecker, R. N., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Acts [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995] 27-30Google Scholar). While I view Paul's entry point as the key shift, much in my thesis would not change if the lines are drawn otherwise.

15 Cf. Klauck, H.-J., ‘Die heilige Stadt. Jerusalem bei Philo und Lukas’, Gemeinde—Amt—Sakrament; Neutestamentliche Perspektiven (Würzburg: Echter, 1989) 101-29Google Scholar.

16 E.g. Chance, J. B., Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–Acts (Macon: Mercer University, 1988) esp. 19-43Google Scholar; Dawsey, J. M., ‘Confrontation in the Temple: Luke 19:45–20:47’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984) 153-65Google Scholar; Weinert, F. D., ‘The Meaning of the Temple in Luke–Acts’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 (1981) 85-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 E.g. Beale, G. K.The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: Apollos/InterVarsity, 2004) esp. 201-44Google Scholar; Elliot, J., ‘Temple Versus Household in Luke–Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions’, The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models of Interpretation (ed. Neyrey, J. H.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991) 211-40Google Scholar; Walton, S., ‘A Tale of Two Perspectives? The Place of the Temple in Acts’, Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology (ed. Alexander, T. D. and Gathercole, S.; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004) 135-49Google Scholar.

18 Contra Michael Bachmann who argued that Luke's vision of the Jerusalem temple carried very little Christian significance but reflected a distinctly Jewish symbolic value (Jerusalem und der Tempel: Die geographisch-theologischen Elemente in der lukanischen Sicht des jüdischen Kultzentrums [BWANT 9; Stuttgart/Berlin/Koln/Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1980] 380Google Scholar).

19 In this way, the Ekklesia is indeed portrayed as a spiritual temple movement—a Holy of Holies for the Holy Spirit—but this identity is an extension of the eschatological form and function of the Jerusalem temple, not an ultimate replacement. To be clear, one does not have to accept my ‘both/and’ solution to this scholarly divide to accept that the Holy Spirit functions as the Lord's temple presence or that Ananias and Sapphira act improperly in proximity to this holy presence.

20 This story begins with the righteous priest Zacharias meeting an ‘angel of the Lord’ at the altar of incense (1.11) and ends with the witnesses of the risen and ascended Jesus praising God in the temple (24.53). The prophetess Anna confirms that Jesus' birth is directly related to the ‘redemption of Jerusalem’ while in the temple (2.36-38). We are given our first clues of Jesus' extraordinary character in juxtaposition to the teachers in the temple (2.41-50). This foreshadows Jesus' career as a teacher in the temple (21.37) and helps to establish his authority to indict the JTE when their ‘time of visitation’ arrives (19.44).

21 Historically speaking, ‘The chief priests were the traditional Jewish aristocracy, who had supreme control of national affairs from their base in Jerusalem’ (Mason, S., ‘Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sadducees’, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, vol. 4 [ed. Bauckham, Richard; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995] 175Google Scholar). In Luke–Acts, ‘the chief priests, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin are largely interrelated’ (142). I would add that Luke's portrait of ‘the scribes’ clearly fits under this heading when located in Jerusalem (e.g. Luke 20.19).

22 Manuscripts vary suggesting the possibility of an aorist subjunctive. Fitzmyer renders this alternative as ‘…until it will come when you will say’ (Luke X–XXIV, 1037). Even so, we can draw a clear association between eschatological time and the utterance of Ps 118 without building an argument of contingency or cause-and-effect here.

23 Cf. e.g. Ezek 8–10; 40–48; Lev 26.10-11; 4Q541; 4Q266f11.3. On the varied and complicated Jewish belief that the temple had been forsaken, see Le Donne, A., The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco: Baylor University, 2009) 248-56Google Scholar. In sum, there were multiple ways that Second Temple Jews envisioned the restoration of Israel, but almost all of them included the Lord's temple presence resting within the temple.

We might find a parallel to the perspective of Luke–Acts in Josephus who also held the temple in absolute reverence but believed that the temple had been forsaken during his lifetime (JW 5.362-419; esp. 5.402-412); indeed Mason calls his Jewish War a ‘Temple-centered history’ (‘Chief Priests’, 159); Betsy Halpern-Amaru argues that Josephus' post-temple perspective eventually reframes his large-scale history to downplay the importance of the ‘land’ for Jewish identity (‘Land Theology in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities', JQR 71 [1980] 201-29Google Scholar). In these ways, Josephus and Luke–Acts are similar; they differ, however, on who is to blame for this desolation. Josephus blames the violence of the commoners, whereas Luke–Acts blames the JTE.

24 Matt 21.42; Mark 12.10, 11; Luke 20.17; Acts 4.11; Eph 2.20; 1 Pet 2.7.

25 Robert L. Brawley rightly observes that Jerusalem and the temple are interchangeable entities in Luke–Acts (Luke–Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation [SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987] 127-30Google Scholar). This view is akin to that of Bachmann, Tempel, 13-66, 169-70. Bachmann's close association between the temple and the Holy City is a departure from H. Conzelmann. Conzelmann held the two entities as symbolically distinct (The Theology of Saint Luke (trans. Buswell, G.; London: Faber & Faber, 1960] 73-9Google Scholar).

26 This question presupposes the opinion that Israel's ‘kingdom’ needed restoring. Moreover, the question hopes that Israel's fundamental deficit will be addressed in the immediate future.

27 Pervo describes this aspect of Acts as ‘narrative of religious propaganda’ (Acts, 58); cf. discussion in Alexander, L. C. A., Acts in its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (JSNTSup 298; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 183-206Google Scholar.

28 The representative Diaspora Jews returning to Jerusalem (Acts 2.5) are probably meant to fulfil the promise that in the last days the stolen children of Israel will be returned to Jerusalem (cf. Isa 49.22; 60.4). Indeed added to the Acts 2 quotation of Joel, we see an allusion to Isa 57.19 (Acts 2.39): ‘For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself’. It is also likely that the 120 followers (Acts 1.15) and the demand for a restored 12 apostles (1.26) are meant to symbolize the restored 12 tribes. Cf. Zwiep, A. W., Judas and the Choice of Matthias (WUNT 2/187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 173-4Google Scholar. The symbolism of the twelve apostles ‘performs a function similar to that of the city of Jerusalem’ (Klauck, H.-J., Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles [trans. McNeil, Brian; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003] 7Google Scholar). In this view, both the circle of twelve and Jerusalem provide an essential continuity between the origins of Jesus' following and the extension of the ‘family of God’; McCabe draws attention to Luke 22.30 when he writes, ‘Jesus identifies the twelve disciples as those who will sit on the thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel’ (‘Words’, 190).

29 Clare Rothschild has argued that in Luke–Acts, such predictions ‘offered audiences the opportunity to both recollect what they knew about an event before it was narrated, as well as anticipate this upcoming version of the events’. She argues that ‘prediction provides anticipation of events that are unveiled in subsequent parts of the narrative, as a way of anticipating, even preempting skeptical reactions to these events’ frequently high degree of implausibility' (Luke–Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography [WUNT 2/175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004] 144-5Google Scholar).

30 Johnson, L. T., The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992) 29 (emphasis original)Google Scholar.

31 Cf. D. Marguerat's assessment that the overarching subject of Acts 2–5 is the unfolding of the Spirit-filled community's interactions with the JTE (‘La mort d'Ananias et Saphira [Ac 5.1-11] dans la stratégie narrative de Luc’, NTS 39 [1993] 209-26, esp. 211-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

32 Klauck suggests that Acts 2.44-45; 4.37-38, and 5.1-2 are intended to give us an idealized picture of general practice (‘Gütergemeinschaft in der klassischen Antike, in Qumran und im Neuen Testament’, RevQ 11 [1982–83] 47-79Google Scholar, here 69-73, 79). He points out that images of social utopia were not unique to Jewish sects in classical antiquity. G. E. Sterling concludes that the summary statements function as identity-shaping passages for emerging Christianity (‘Athletes of Virtue: An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts [2:41-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16]’, JBL 113 [1994] 679-96Google Scholar).

33 Indeed, the JTE is ‘jealous’ (Acts 5.17) of ecclesial leadership. It is clear that the leaders among the JTE are the antagonists. We are told that many priests became ‘obedient to the faith’ (Acts 6.7). Moreover, it is clear that the high/chief priests (e.g. Acts 7.55) are targeted by the narrative. The odd designation ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱɛροῦ (4.1; 5.24; cf. Luke 22.4, 52) further emphasizes that the leadership of the temple is in view.

34 It is well known that the temple functioned not only as the center of religious life and the administrating power matrix in this context, but that this power matrix included fiscal centrality (Moxnes, H., The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 71Google Scholar). Of course, the praxis of this ideology was a matter of debate and (perhaps) sometimes violence in Second Temple Judaism. For example, when the rebels of the ‘commoners’ decided to rise up against the JTE, they not only killed two chief priests and set fire to the high priest's house, they also burned down the public archives where the records of debt were kept (JW 2.427). For a succinct, recent treatment on the relevant historical backdrop, see Finger, R. H., Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) esp. pp. 109-24Google Scholar.

35 In the course of ten verses (3.1-10), the word ἱɛρόν is used six times and this episode climaxes as a man who had formerly been marginalized from temple worship enters the temple to worship with Peter and John. It is possible that the man's position at the gate, and entry to temple worship through the gates, echoes Ps 118.19-22.

36 Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (trans. Limburg, J., Kraabel, A. T., and Juel, D. H.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 38Google Scholar; Cassidy, Society, 22-3; Haenchen, Acts, 237; Pervo, Acts, 317.

37 Klauck reminds us that the Feast of Weeks took on ‘a new content [after 70 CE], as recollection of the making of the covenant on Sinai’ (Magic, 8). He cautiously suggests that the narrator of Acts was familiar with this significance. In further support, he demonstrates that Philo's account of the Sinai episode shows great affinity to Luke's account of Pentecost in Acts 2. Indeed, according to Philo ‘the flame transformed itself into articulate sounds that were familiar to the hearers’ (On the Ten Commandments, 46). Beale (Temple, 205-15) writes that ‘the background of the Joel 2 quotation in Acts 2 confirms a dual blessing–cursing theme. Consequently, Isaiah's linking of “tongues of fire” to God's theophanic presence in a Temple points even further to the same link in Acts 2’ (214-15). Drawing from several contemporary Jewish texts, Beale suggests that the coming of the tongues of fire recalls theophanic temple imagery, e.g. the targumic interpolation of Joel 4.16-18 which inserts the phrase ‘sanctuary of the Lord’ (215). He appeals to Isa 30.27-30 which depicts God descending from heaven, ‘his tongue like a consuming fire’. Many of Beale's parallels are ultimately peripheral, but more convincingly, he points to 1 Enoch's vision of a Holy of Holies built of crystals and ‘tongues of fire’ (14.15; 71.5). He concludes that Acts 2 is a portrait of the long-awaited temple of heaven descending to earth. While he might overstate his case, he does well to draw out the importance of the temple for the self-identification of the Ekklesia in Acts.

38 Many scholars theorize that Joel 2.27 represents the end of an independent oracle. If so, the last verses of the final form of Joel (3.20-21) mirror the key emphasis of this oracle: the Lord is present; see discussion in Barton, J., Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 4-14Google Scholar.

39 In addition to the extended quote of Joel 3.1-5 LXX, Acts 1–7 demonstrates at least a dozen other allusions or echoes of Joel. On the heavy influence of Joel on this section and perhaps the most sophisticated treatment of the use of scripture in Acts 2, see Brawley, R. L., Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke–Acts (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1995) 75-90Google Scholar, esp. 87-90. If one is not convinced that the telos of Joel is in view in Acts 2, I would point out that the nearness of the Lord's presence is also a key element of Ps 16.8-11, also quoted in the immediate context (Acts 2.25-28).

40 Of course, Joel's vision of who is judged differs from the vision of Acts 1–7. However, as we will see below, divine judgment is also important for Acts.

41 Hans Walter Wolff summarizes that Joel envisions Jerusalem as ‘the inviolable “sanctuary” (v. 17b). Yahweh's tabernacling on Zion will bring protection for the whole city area (vv. 16-17, 20-21)—and, v. 18 adds, a fountain of fertile life for the surrounding regions… [T]he Temple designates the source of new life which, according to Ezek 47, it represents as Yahweh's Tabernacle’ (Joel and Amos [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] 85Google Scholar); cf. Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 14; Barton confirms that Wolff's treatment is still among the best in circulation (1).

42 Johnson helpfully observes, ‘Ancient historians used the speeches of their characters to communicate to the reader the wider implications and the deeper meaning of the events being described’ (Acts, 53).

43 As is frequently noted, Stephen's trial thus mirrors the trial of Jesus in several ways. E.g. G. W. Trompf argued that Stephen's trial and death were a reenactment of Jesus' (The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought [Berkeley: University of California, 1979] 124-5Google Scholar); cf. also Clare Rothschild, Luke–Acts and the Rhetoric of History, 111-14.

44 Cf. the related thesis of Sterling, G. E., ‘Opening the Scriptures: The Legitimation of the Jewish Diaspora and Early Christian Mission’, Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (ed. Moessner, D. P.; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999) 199-225Google Scholar. Sterling argues that Stephen's speech is a way to legitimize this community outside of the borders of Israel and the temple precincts (esp. 213-14).

45 In light of the many appeals to the LXX in Luke–Acts, δόξα is evocative of the Lord's temple presence. כְבוֹד is commonly translated by the LXX as δόξα in such cultic contexts. Considering the prominence of Moses within Stephen's speech, cf. esp. Exod 40.34-35.

46 In the Acts 7.38 interpretation, Moses was in the presence of an angel.

47 O'Toole, Robert F., ‘You Did Not Lie to Us (Human Beings) but to God (Acts 5,4c)’, Biblica 76 (1995): 182-209Google Scholar, esp. 190-1.

48 Cf. Exod 24.16; 25.8; 29.45.

49 It is also noteworthy that the second occurrence of ἐκκλησία refers to Moses' ‘congregation in the wilderness’ (ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, 7.38). This supports the narrator's effort to connect Peter's congregation to that of Moses (i.e. restored Israel) in Stephen's speech. The first occurrence of this word, of course, is in 5.11; cf. Harrill, ‘Divine Judgment’, 351.

50 I reiterate that it is not necessary to see this extension of the temple-community as a necessary replacement of the Jerusalem temple. Indeed, this is why Paul can return to the Jerusalem temple to worship in 21.26.

51 This builds on the Acts 2.21-38 interpretation of the Lord's name in Joel 2.32 (esp. Acts 2.38), but also echoes Ps 118.26: ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord…’

52 Cf. Jesus' quotation of this following the parable of the vine-growers in Luke 20.17.

53 This also helps us frame the use of Ps 118 in Luke 20.17-18. Cf. G. E. Sterling's succinct observation of ‘glances back’ in Acts. Concerning Acts 4.11 he argues, ‘The author expects the reader of Acts to have read Luke’ (Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke–Acts and Apologetic Historiography [NovTSup; Leiden: Brill, 1992] 336 n. 121Google Scholar).

54 It is possible that there is a word play at work in the phrase ‘καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπɛσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν’. My thanks to Loren Stuckenbruck for this observation via personal correspondence. It is interesting that the verb λιθοβολοῦσα relates to λίθος especially considering that ἀπɛσταλμένους might carry apostolic connotations. In any case, the narrative of Luke has precedent for employing ‘stones’ as a metaphor to refer to people (e.g. Luke 3.8; 19.40).

55 The parallels between the Yahad and the community depicted in Acts have become well known (and perhaps overdrawn at times) in NT scholarship. What is noncontroversial is the fact that the Yahad self-identified with temple terminology. The Yahad is ‘a holy house for Israel, and a foundation, a Holy of Holies (קודש קודשים) for Aaron; witnesses of truth, for justice, and favorably chosen’ (1QS 8.4-6). Moreover, 1QS 3-4 is clearly interested in defining insiders of their Holy-of-Holies-sect in relationship to the ‘spirit of holiness’ (רוח קודש, 1QS 4.21). A. L. A. Hogeterp is correct to see a relationship between the Yahad's self-identification as a temple and their notion of ‘his spirit’ (Paul and God's Temple [BTS 2; Leuven: Peeters, 2006] 106Google Scholar).

It is commonly thought that the Yahad considered their community a replacement for the temple and/or that prayer in their community replaced sacrifice. While I will not rule out this possibility, the Yahad's enactment of the temple was not necessarily a rejection of the literal temple precincts or the act of literal sacrifice. Their laments and polemics toward the JTE stem from a hope for a pure temple and priesthood. The ‘true’ priests of the Yahad ritually purified themselves (including prayer) not to supersede an outmoded concept. This was done in eschatological preparation for an anointed priest who would restore purity alongside an anointed king. Cf. Dimant, D., ‘4QFlorilegium and the idea of the Community as Temple’, Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky (ed. Caquot, A., Hadas-Lebel, M., and Riaud, J.; Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 165-89Google Scholar; cf. the more recent treatment of Klawans, J., Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University, 2006) 145-74Google Scholar.

56 ‘You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ… The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very cornerstone’ (1 Pet 2.4, 7).

57 Cf. Exod 29.45; Lev 26.12; Jer 31.1; Ezek 37.27.

58 In 1 Cor 6.19: ‘Or do you not know that your body is a temple (τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναός) of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify (δοξάσατɛ) God in your body’. Cf. 1 Cor 3.16-17: ‘Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God (ναὸς θɛοῦ ἐστɛ καὶ τὸ πνɛῦμα τοῦ θɛοῦ) dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are’; cf. also 2 Cor 6.16. A fuller treatment would have to explore the Fourth Evangelist's move to use cultic-architectural language as a metaphor for Jesus' body (John 2.19-22); cf. J. Klawans who writes that ‘both Paul's [Temple] metaphors and Jesus’ eucharistic words and deeds find a likely context in the multifarious and well-attested ancient Jewish efforts to channel the Temple's sanctity into various other rituals activities, such as prayer and eating' (Purity, 244).

59 The author/editors(s) of the Community Rule seem to have been influenced by the cultic designation ‘spirit of holiness’ as well. The author of the Damascus Document believed that the usurpers in the Jerusalem temple ‘polluted the sanctuary’ (מטמים הם את חמקדש, CD 5.6). Noteworthy for the present thesis is that these culprits are accused of corrupting ‘their holy spirit’ (רוח קדשיחם). On the relationship between CD and 1QS see Metso, S. S., ‘The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule’, The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery (ed. Baumgarten, J. M., Chazon, E. G., and Pinnick, A.; STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000)Google Scholar. Metso argues for a direct relationship rather than mere influence.

60 Harrill (‘Divine Judgment’, 362-4) offers a helpful summary on the theme of money/possessions in Luke–Acts; cf. Johnson, L. T., The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke–Acts (SBLDS; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1977) esp. 209-11Google Scholar; on the relationship between Luke and Acts on this theme see Moxnes, Economy, 161.

61 Moxnes, Economy, 120; cf. especially Jesus' teaching on the use of money as he stands near the temple treasury (Luke 20.46–21.6).

62 Moxnes argues that this section ‘sums up a pattern of the system of “moral economy” that prevailed in the Gospel’ (Economy, 160). He argues that the remainder of Acts is less guided by this ethic; C. M. Hays argues for a consistent economic vision throughout both Luke and Acts, although manifested in various ways (Luke's Wealth Ethics: A Study in their Coherence and Character [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010] 269Google Scholar).

63 Fitzmyer points out that Levites were often employed for ‘lowlier services in the Jerusalem Temple’ (Acts, 321).

64 Cf. Johnson, Acts, 91.

65 E.g. Gen 4.3-4; 32.3-24; Lev 5.6-18. In Leviticus, the root is used nineteen times, eighteen of these in the context of sacrifice. See especially Deut 12.11: ‘Then it shall come about that the place in which the Lord your God will choose for his name to dwell, there you shall bring (οἴσɛτɛ) all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution of your hand, and all your choice votive offerings which you will vow to the Lord’.

66 Dunn's reading comes closest to this as he observes that Barnabas is designated as a Levite to contrast him with the ‘hostile priests of 4.1’ (Acts, 60). B. J. Malina and J. J. Pilch are representative of most commentators on this point. They observe that Barnabas is a Levite, which connects him to the priestly family, but offer no suggestion as to why this detail is included in the narrative (Social Science Commentary on the Book of Acts [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008] 48Google Scholar).

67 Dunn writes that ‘the episode marks out the new church as evincing that aura of holiness which particularly in its beginnings marked out the tabernacles and Temple with its Holy of Holies’ (Acts, 63).

68 There is some debate over whether the punishment of ‘cutting off’ in the Pentateuch might imply divine execution. Most of the time, the punishment implies execution or excommunication by the community. But Lev 20.2-5 provides the rare example of ‘cutting off’ wherein this stipulation is made: if offenders escape capital punishment by the community, they will be executed by the Lord himself. Apropos of the present thesis, the offense in question (offering children to Molech) is said to ‘defile my sanctuary’ (v. 3). So again, this instance of divine execution is related to the sanctuary. See discussion in Wenham, G. J., The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 285-6Google Scholar. In any case, the text does not specify the timeframe of the death (so too with Onan; Gen 38.10). My thanks to Leonard Greenspoon, Joel Lohr, and Mark Mangano for their insights.

69 Lev 26.31 becomes instructive of accidental priestly impropriety during the ‘sin or guilt offering’ (חטתו… את אשמו, 4Q266f11.3) and results in the Lord forsaking the temple to the ends of heaven to avoid smelling the sacrificial odors: אלכה לי אל קצי [ה]שמים ולו אריח בריח ניחוחכם ובמקום אחר, f11.4); interesting for the present thesis, the lines that follow appeal to Joel 2 for repentance.

70 There is also evidence of this logic in post-70 CE contexts. One section from the Mishnah advocates the execution of an unclean priest. Sanh. 9.6 instructs that the unclean priest should be taken outside by the young priests ‘and they should bash open his brain with clubs’ (ומַפְצִיעִין אֶת מוֹחוֹ בִּגְזִירִין). Such violence is draconian and meant to be so. When measured against the possibility of a departed Shekinah, however, the summary execution of an errant priest was seen as a less severe option. Striking for the present thesis is what directly follows this passage. Sanh. 9.6 provides two options for dealing with non-priests who perform a cultic function in the temple: (1) Rabbi Aqiba says that the non-priest should be executed ‘by strangling’ (בְּחֶנֶק). (2) The sages say that the non-priest should be executed ‘by the hands of Heaven’ (בּידֵי שָׁמָיִם). Notice that the second option presupposes that the Lord is present and can enact violent recompense for the actions that might have otherwise resulted in the violent removal of the temple.

71 It is an interesting coincidence that Ananias shares his name with the High Priest. Paul predicts Ananias will be struck down by God in Acts 23.2. It is possible, although only possible, that this affinity is intentional.

72 Cf. Pervo who points to the D-texts generally (Acts, 135 n. 95).

73 Apparently the Yahad spoke of their prayers for justice as sacrificial offerings (1QS 9.5). In later Jewish texts, almsgiving sometimes took on the significance of atoning sacrifices. Although rabbinic witness must be dealt with cautiously when making claims about first-century texts, some might find the following texts interesting: 'Abot R. Nat. 4.5 [20a]. Also Tem 1.6i-k'Abot 4.11; t. Pe'ah 4.21; b. Bat. 9-10a; Sukkah 49b.

74 Here ἐψɛύσω τῷ θɛῷ and πɛιράσαι τὸ πνɛῦμα κυρίου function interchangeably and are mutually informative.

75 The twice mentioned response of fear is suggestive of theophanic experience. This response seems to have varying results for the internal (or implied) audience of Acts, but 5.14 expresses a positive response as the Ekklesia grows rapidly. A similar, but not identical, response is given after Herod Agrippa is executed by an angel of the Lord in Acts 12.23-24. After this theophanic episode, ‘the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be multiplied’ (12.24). Interestingly, Agrippa's death is caused by a lack of deference to ‘the glory (τὴν δόξαν) of God’. However, because of the mediating angel who executes Herod, this passage must remain on the periphery of the present thesis.

76 This connection provides an interesting parallel with 1QS. Opposite to the ‘Spirit of Truth’ in 1QS 3–4 was a ‘Spirit of Falsehood’ who deceived those outside the community. The Yahad valued the purity of their temple-community very highly (perhaps this was their chief concern) and it was for this reason that incorporating new members was a very deliberate process. The reason for this deliberation with respect to fiscal incorporation was Exod 23.7. The Yahad could not be fiscally yoked to fraud because they had to be far ‘from every false word’ (1QS 5.15). This perspective might shed light on the false words of Ananias and Sapphira as directed by Satan. Peter tells Ananias that he has lied (not to men but) to God. He tells Sapphira that she (like her husband) has tested the Holy Spirit. Jörg Frey has argued that 1QS 3.13–4.25 was part of a composition that pre-dated the sectarian writings, but perhaps influenced the ideology represented by 1QS (‘Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History’, Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies [ed. Bernstein, M. J., Martinez, F. G., and Kampen, J.; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 2007] 275-335Google Scholar, esp. 285-313). If Frey is correct, perhaps the role played by the ‘spirit of holiness' as the means for eschatological (not present) purification mentioned in column 4 was a factor that led the compiler(s) of the Community Rule to incorporate the content preserved in 3.13-4.25.

77 The fact that Peter emphasizes that these offenses were not committed against men is reminiscent of 1 Sam 2.25. After their temple misconduct is detailed, Eli attempts to reason with his sons, saying, ‘If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?’ Eli's advice has an interesting affinity to Luke 12.10: ‘everyone who speaks a word against the son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him’.

78 Luke–Acts gives us two portraits of religio-fiscal management based on the temple, both involving widows. The first portrait sets the wealthy and the poor in contrast. The wealthy JTE (Jesus actually uses the term ‘robbers’) mismanages the temple treasury to such an extent that widows are forced to destitution by giving ‘all they have’. Jesus laments this in Luke 21.4. The second involves Peter's congregation. Peter's management of the community pot ensures the care of the poor. Widows are not forced to destitution but can petition the religio-fiscal leaders for help (Acts 6.1 [Cassidy, Society, 27]). When Sapphira enters the picture, she does not know that she has become a widow herself (Acts 5.7). In contrast to the widow who gave everything she had, Sapphira has become a widow precisely because she (like her husband) has not given all that she had. The Third Gospel is quite fond of ironic role reversals, and especially so between the rich and poor (e.g. Luke 1.52-53; 6.20, 24; 16.19-31). When juxtaposed, these two widows provide another example. Jesus is an advocate for the widow who gives everything and is thus exploited by the system (Luke 21); the Holy Spirit strikes down the widow who exploits the system by refusing to give everything (Acts 5).