article25

§20 Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9–25)

8:9–11 / Among the crowds that “paid close attention to what Philip said” (v. 6) was one Simon, a Magus (see notes). He practiced the charms and incantations of the East and by these means had held the Samaritans in his thrall for a long time (v. 11). They called him the Great Power (v. 10), apparently at his own suggestion (v. 9). From the New Testament, as indeed from later sources relating to the Samaritans in particular, we learn that “power” was a name given to any angelic or divine being (cf., e.g., Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21; 3:10) and sometimes even to God himself (Mark 14:62). In the light of this, it would appear that the Samaritans believed Simon to be the incarnation of some such being. Little wonder then that they gave him their attention (v. 10), though with gentle irony Luke uses the same expression here as in verse 6 to describe the attention that they now gave to Philip.

8:12–13 / Philip’s preaching here is described as being about the good news of the kingdom of God, which now, of course, revolved about the person and work of Jesus Christ (v. 12; see disc. on 1:3 and notes and the disc. on 19:8). The result of this preaching was that many Samaritans believed Philip, that is, they gave credence to what he said and so believed in Jesus as the Messiah. On this basis they were baptized, both men and women (v. 12; see disc. on 1:14). For reasons of his own, which soon become clear, Simon Magus also professed faith and was baptized, after which he followed Philip everywhere (“he paid close attention,” see disc. on 2:42), being astounded at the great signs and miracles (lit. “powers”) that he saw being done (v. 13; see note on 2:22). This is perhaps another touch of Lukan irony, for Simon was supposed to be “the Great Power” and for a long time had astounded others (vv. 9–11). It was the power, not the holiness, of the new faith that impressed him (v. 23).

8:14–17 / When news reached Jerusalem that the people of Samaria had accepted the word of God (v. 14; the reference is a general one to the region), the apostles sent Peter and John to them. The fact that they were sent by the whole group acting as a collegiate body shows that no one leader had as yet emerged (see disc. on 9:27 and notes on 11:30 and 12:17). But why were Peter and John sent at all? Before attempting to answer this question, we should first observe the expressions that are used of these Samaritans: they “paid close attention to what (Philip) said” (v. 6); “they believed Philip as he preached the good news” (v. 12); they accepted the word of God (v. 14); they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 17), where the Greek preposition eis expresses the thought of commitment to the one in whose name the rite was administered (see note on 2:38 and the disc. on 14:23 and 19:5); and finally, as a result of all this, “there was great joy in that city” (v. 8). There is no hint of any deficiency in their faith. Certainly Philip recognized none, else he would not have baptized them. Nor did Peter and John find anything lacking, for as far as we know, they preached nothing more to them before laying hands upon them (but cf. v. 25). It is hard to believe, then, that the Spirit’s work of regeneration had not been done in their lives. And yet the apostles prayed that these Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them (vv. 15, 16). How does this fit with the teaching elsewhere that Christians are, without exception, both born of the Spirit and endowed with the Spirit at new birth (see notes on 2:4 and 38)? A clue may be found in Luke’s use of the phrase Holy Spirit without the definite article (so the Greek in vv. 15, 17, 19). The anarthrous (without the article) form often seems to place greater emphasis on the Spirit’s activity than on his person; what may have been lacking in Samaria was the outward manifestation of that activity in the more evident gifts of the Spirit (cf. 10:46; 19:6). The reference in verse 18 to Simon’s seeing something when the Spirit was given may bear this out, as also the verb “to come (lit., fall) upon” (v. 16), which in 10:44 and 11:15 is used of the Spirit’s coming in a way that was marked by outward signs. We hasten to add, however, that this is not always the way of his coming, as 1 Corinthians 12:29f. makes abundantly clear.

But still the question remains, Why were the apostles sent? There is no indication that the laying on of hands, much less of apostolic hands, was a necessary or even normal part of Christian initiation. Nor was it unusual for a period of time to elapse between baptism and the reception (experience) of the Spirit (cf. 9:17f.; 10:44; 1 Cor. 12:13). Nor have we any reason to think that the gift of the Spirit was administered exclusively by the apostles—or anyone else, for that matter. In fact, a careful examination of Acts shows that the pattern of conversion and initiation varies in every case for which we have details, the only common element being the presence of faith in Jesus marked by the outward sign of that faith, namely, baptism into / in / upon his name. Arising out of this, two observations must be made: First, no satisfactory answer to the question can be given that ignores the peculiar social and historical factors that obtained in this situation. The Samaritans needed to be shown that they were fully incorporated into the Christian community. Without a clear connecting link between the church in Samaria and that in Jerusalem, the schism that had for so long plagued Jewish-Samaritan relations might well have been carried over into the church. There could easily have been Jewish Christians who would “not associate with” Samaritan Christians (cf. John 4:9) had not something like this united the work of Philip with that of the Jerusalem apostles. Second, whatever explanation is given, it would be a mistake to treat this incident as establishing the normal pattern for all admissions into the church.

8:18–19 / When Simon saw what had happened, he betrayed the motive for his own apparent conversion. He, too, wanted the power that he had first seen in Philip and now saw at work in the ministry of the apostles. Thinking that it could be bought, he offered … money to Peter and John (v. 18; cf. 2 Kings 5:20ff.). In the manner of the time Simon had probably bought other secrets from masters of magic (cf. 19:19) and no doubt thought that he was about to do so again and by this means restore and even enhance his former reputation.

8:20–23 / But Peter soon put him right, and in unmistakable terms (cf. 5:3, 4, 9). He declared in effect that Simon was an unregenerate reprobate and wished that his money and he might go to hell. Was he thinking of Judas when he said this? That Simon had thought to obtain God’s gift in this way and to administer it to all and sundry without reference to faith or repentance shows how little he understood either of God or of his gifts. The thought had come from a heart not right before God (v. 21; the phrase is taken from Ps. 78:37; cf. 13:10). Despite his baptism and profession of faith, Simon had “no part or share in the message” (v. 21, so the Greek), that is, he had not entered into the meaning of baptism and had neither truly confessed Jesus as Lord nor received his salvation. Moreover, when Peter told him to repent and to pray for forgiveness, the form of the Greek expresses doubt that he would, so far did he seem to be from God. Verse 23 reads literally, “For I see that you are for a gall of bitterness and a chain of sin.” The second half of this statement is reminiscent of Isaiah 58:6; the first half is derived from Deuteronomy 29:18. In the latter, any turning away from God is described as “a root … that produces … bitter poison.” The precise sense in which Peter applied this to Simon depends on our interpretation of the Greek preposition eis. It is generally taken as equivalent to en, “in,” meaning that Simon was in this condition, that he was “a bitter and poisonous plant” and a captive to sin. But the preposition has been understood as equivalent to hōs “as,” denoting the evil function that Simon would fulfill in the church if he continued as he was. This is the sense of the similar expression in Hebrews 12:15.

8:24 / The intention of Simon’s final request to Peter and John is not certain. It may express genuine repentance. Certainly there is no further condemnation of him, and the request for prayer on his behalf does not rule out the possibility that he also prayed for himself. Nor must we allow the later stories of Simon as the arch-heretic to color our interpretation. But for all that, the suspicion remains that he was more concerned to escape punishment than he was to turn to the Lord (cf. 1 Sam. 24:16; 26:21).

8:25 / The story ends with a summary statement from which we learn that the apostles gave further instruction to the believers (for the verb “to give testimony” see disc. on 2:40) after which they started out on their return journey, preaching as they entered a number of Samaritan villages. Philip may have accompanied them, since this gives better sense to verse 26. Thus, the work among the Samaritans ends as a joint venture between Hellenists and Hebrews. Philip’s return to Jerusalem (if that is what it was) may have been after the Pauline persecution had abated (9:31). There is no strict chronology in this part of Acts.