Standard page

The book the Church calls the Acts of the Apostles serves as a companion volume to the Third Gospel, both of which are ascribed to Luke the physician, Paul’s frequent travelling companion in ministry. It is widely accepted that Luke’s writings hold a unique place within the New Testament (NT), as his accounts span the period between the earthly ministry of Jesus, and His heavenly ministry through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Acts, particularly, is important in one other respect. It is a historiographical[1] account of roughly the first thirty-five years of the life of the Christian Church.

A general misunderstanding of the nature, purpose and structure of The Acts has resulted in many going astray, which has then led to the formulation of a wide range of novel theologies, church practices and religious doctrines. The events described in Acts 8, for example, have often been misunderstood and misapplied in the defence of certain curious positions one of which this essay seeks to address.

The aim of this essay, then, is to situate chapter 8 squarely within the overall context of the Acts narrative. In doing so I aim to describe the events that unfolded, the context in which they occurred, and the theological significance they hold for us today. I would suggest that the essays entitled [Pentecost] and [Acts 2:38] be examined initially, to provide background context for the issues that are discussed herein.

The key verse that defines the scope of the book is 1:8, “…but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth[2].” Around this verse Luke crafted his entire narrative. It also states the promise made by Jesus to His appointed representatives, that provides the hermeneutical key[3] to understanding (a) Luke’s purpose in writing Acts, and (b) the nature of his timeless message to the Church through history. Essentially, then, the Acts of the Apostles was written to demonstrate the fulfilment of the commission given to the apostles by the resurrected Lord. In order to ensure a proper understanding, therefore, it is vitally important that we fully apprehend just what it is that Jesus had promised.

The first point is that we have a record stating that it would be His apostles (the thrice mentioned ‘you’ of verse 8) who were to receive a special endowment of power (dunamin) when the Holy Spirit overshadowed (ep’ humas) them. This spiritual empowering was to enable them to be Jesus’ witnesses (martures) – first in Jerusalem, then in all Judea and Samaria, and finally to “the ends of the earth” (eschatou tes ges). A point, about which many Christians are ignorant, is that the expression “the ends of the earth” had a very specific connotation during the First Century. The phrase was a common geographical byword, and referred specifically to the western border of the Roman Empire - the region in and around the modern countries of Spain and Portugal.

Importantly, then, in The Acts Jesus did not make a universal declaration, one wherein He commissioned all believers through all time to witness of Him throughout all the earth. He was far more specific than that, and it was around this specificity that Luke wrote his account. We must pay due heed to this fact as we wend our way through the entire narrative, as we seek to see matters through Luke’s eyes rather than our own.

The early Christian Church inherited traditional Jewish interpretive methods that are collectively known as middôt. Comprising seven in number, many were used extensively by early Christians in the process of biblical interpretation, whilst others were used in a far more qualified, or cautious, sense. Unfortunately, Christians of today tend to demonstrate much less reserve than did their Jewish-Christian counterparts of the First Century in this regard. More often than not, many modern believers completely disregard structured interpretive principles altogether, believing that the indwelling Holy Spirit somehow makes such processes redundant, or unnecessary [see Biblical Interpretation]. However, it is important to have a measure of understanding regarding the historical interpretative methods and their use, given that all the Christian writers, including Luke, used them extensively in their explaining of the Old Testament (OT) passages they incorporated into their writings. Apparently Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and the author of Hebrews did not view the activity of the Holy Spirit in the same light as do some today!

In this excurses, I would like to very briefly address two of the most important middôt, along with one outright abuse from antiquity. My aim is to provide by way of a brief overview, examples of the Jewish interpretative process, along with some reflection on certain risks associated with faulty application.

Qal wahômer, gezêrâ šawâ and charaz all need careful qualification to ensure their responsible use in the process of interpreting Scripture. Given the tendency of some people to work through The Acts in search of forced parallels, which are often then described as normative, and so binding upon all believers; this becomes a somewhat urgent endeavour.

1. Qal wahômer[4]. Essentially, this concept involved the use of logical reasoning by arguing from a lesser principle to a greater one. Jesus used this method, for example, in John 7:23, when He argued the ‘rightness’ of healing on the Sabbath. He compared his own actions with those of the Jews, who saw no difficulty in circumcising male infants on the Sabbath, in deference to the perceived teaching of Moses. Effectively, this approach might be appealed to in order to defend the conviction that speaking in tongues was expected in the Acts 8 account, because of the specific circumstances and perceived ‘universal’ principles apparently outlined in the Acts 2 account. However, for this principle to be applicable, the general circumstances must be identical. In comparing chapters 8 and 2, we discover that they are not, as in chapter 2 it was the twelve Apostles only who spoke in ‘tongues’[5].

2. Gezêrâ šawâ[6]. When one comes across a word, or a group of words that are repeated within the same paragraph or discourse, one can reasonably infer that they all share the same general meaning. So, if one should one see the word ‘baptism’ referred to several times in the same chapter, or book, one can reasonably assume that the word describes the same practice. However, this requires some qualification. Given the nature of language, it is the context in which the word is used that should properly determine its meaning. For example, the word ‘believed’ (episteusen[7]) is used to describe those who accepted Philip’s preaching, and who were subsequently baptised as a direct result[8]. This word, and the circumstances surrounding its use, naturally directs us to consider the situation that is recorded in Acts 2:41-44. The difficulty, however, is that the very same word is also used in 8:13 to describe the ‘believing’ of Simon Magus, which was practically demonstrated by his submitting to baptism. The obvious conclusion that we might naturally draw, therefore, is that Simon exercised ‘saving belief’. However, Luke very quickly dismissed this possibility not many lines later. We are then faced with an apparent conundrum, and are forced to reflect as to why Luke should choose to use a word that would present precisely the wrong impression about Simon’s eternal state to his reader(s). The conundrum, however, is more apparent than real, as will become clear later in this essay.

3. Charaz[9]. Perhaps the most abused interpretative principle of all, is the stringing together of isolated biblical verses to support a position or theme. This practice becomes inexcusable if the contexts in which the individual verses are found are not analogous, or are simply disregarded. However, the practice is perfectly legitimate when the subjects, contexts and applications of the verses properly align.

“And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.

Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. With shrieks, evil spirits came out of many and many paralytics and cripples were healed. So there was great joy in that city.

Now for some time a man named Simon had practised sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, ‘This man is the divine power known as the Great Power.’ They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptised. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, ‘Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ Peter answered: ‘may your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.’ Then Simon answered, ‘Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.’

When they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages[10].”

For the first five years of the Church’s existence, the preaching of the gospel had been limited only to those of fully Jewish blood. However, the martyrdom of Stephen set in train a chain of events that catapulted both Christian and message outwards from Jerusalem. Philip, a member of the Jerusalem church, found himself numbered among those so scattered, and for reasons known only to him and God, he decided to visit a city in Samaria. This city was most probably either Sebaste or Gitta[11].

We learn that Philip began to preach about Jesus there, not the Holy Spirit, nor manifestations or sundry gifts, but of Christ alone. In order to affirm the truth of his message, he also performed miraculous signs. Luke tells us that these comprised (1) the casting out of demons, and (2) the healing of the sick. The result of all of this was ‘great joy in the city.’

Almost immediately, we are introduced to the person of Simon, a man who we are advised had been practising magic arts (v.9), and by virtue of them had deceived the population of the city (v.11). In spite of all this, Philip proved successful in his efforts at preaching the gospel – the message of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God – and consequently, many people placed their faith in Him, and had been baptised as a consequence (v. 12)[12]. We immediately note the obvious parallel to the results of Peter’s preaching in Acts 2.

The first difficulty arises when we learn that Simon had also believed, that he had then been baptised (by Philip), and that he was constantly in the company of him[13]. Several points, therefore, merit some consideration. First among them is that Luke’s choice of words tends to indicate that, to all intents and purposes, Simon exhibited the same outward displays of belief as had the other Samaritans. Second, it is clear that Philip was sufficiently satisfied with this outward demonstration that he consented to baptising Simon. However, the passage makes it very clear that the object of Simon’s belief was not Jesus. Rather Simon had placed his ‘saving belief’ in the power to perform the ‘signs and miracles’ that he had witnessed in Philip[14]. The context of the later rebuke by Peter supports this hypothesis. An appropriate analogy might be drawn to a person who desires to receive, and experience, a ‘spiritual gift’ today. The person might even be baptised if he or she believes this rite will help him or her to gain the ‘gift’. However, at the heart of the matter is the reality that the person’s focus is not really on receiving Jesus as the gift-giver, it is focussed more on receiving the ‘gift’ as an end in itself. The question that is most important, then, is this: upon whom or to what is the individual’s ‘saving belief’ focussed? A Person (Jesus), or a sign (such as ‘tongues’)? The answer, as we have seen above, has eternal ramifications.

Perhaps the most unusual feature of the Acts 8 account, especially when compared with Acts 2 is that Luke described what would have normally been accepted as a ‘salvation event’ having occurred among the Samaritans. Curiously, however, he points out that the Holy Spirit, the Person by virtue of whose indwelling one’s salvation is assured, had not yet overshadowed them.

It is at this juncture, which many view to be a crux-interpretum[16] that it becomes important to seriously reflect upon Luke’s stated and implied purposes and emphases. We will then remember that he recorded Christ’s commissioning His apostles in 1:8, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Noting this, we will recall how clearly Luke’s unfolding history demonstrates these very same apostles discharging their commission with unique power and authority. Now, the record has moved beyond the confines of Jerusalem and Judea, to Samaria itself. Due to Philip’s preaching, it becomes necessary for the apostles to display their unique power, and to assert their unique authority as the unique witnesses, or representatives (even the living ‘evidences’) of Jesus Christ, and of His claim to being the Messiah.

Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit[17].

In chapter 2 we read how the Holy Spirit descended in power on the twelve, as eschatological ‘representatives’ of the original tribes of Israel, and that after this 3,000 further members of the Jewish nation were converted. Pentecost, it should be remembered, was the fulfilment of a Jewish Covenant promise [see Pentecost]. On that day, the Holy Spirit gave Himself sovereignly, and in accordance with His intended purposes. In Samaria, however, the word of the Lord had been delivered to ‘half-Jews’, those whose right to enjoy the Covenant promise was held to be somewhat suspect. The authority to ratify the inclusion of others within the New Covenant community, therefore, was delegated by Christ to His apostles (see Matthew 16:13-19). It was for this reason that it required the laying of their hands alone for the Holy Spirit to be given at such a pivotal time in Church history. This having been done, no Jewish Christian could ever again claim adequate grounds for rejecting their Samaritan brothers and sisters.

When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin[18].”

Simon was a person who clamoured after supernatural power. He had attempted to gain such for himself through the practice of magic arts. He had witnessed Philip casting out demons and healing people of physical afflictions. Finally, he had seen Christ’s special representatives impart something altogether marvellous, something that not even Philip had the authority to give. So what did he see?

The truth is, we really don’t know. In many respects, the answer isn’t even that important. What is important is that we leave the passage fully comprehending what it was that Luke wanted us to understand. We leave the passage secure in the knowledge that (1) Christ is the Messiah, (2) that the apostles were commissioned by Jesus to represent Him. We affirm and understand (3) their unique authority and role. Similarly, we take comfort in the knowledge that (4) what Jesus said would come to pass did – the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and the spread of the gospel exactly in accordance with his prophecy. It seems clear that Luke never intended for us to attribute any manifestation in particular with the infilling of the Holy Spirit, otherwise he would have told us precisely what had happened. Instead, he told us precisely why it happened. This salient feature of his defence is extremely significant.

Did the Samaritans manifest the ‘languages of the gentile world’ (ie. did they speak in very specific ‘tongues’)? It doesn’t seem particularly likely. For starters, Luke tells us that only the twelve apostles did so at Pentecost and then only with good reason. Next, we reflect that there is absolutely no record of Philip (who it seems unlikely was able to ‘manifest the languages of the gentile world’ in any case) spouting off in ‘tongues’ at any stage in order to impress the Samaritans. What impressed them, however, were the very same signs that impressed everyone during Jesus’ earthly ministry: the casting out of demons and the healing of the sick. To be sure, something remarkable happened, but ‘tongues’ hardly seems likely to have fitted the bill.

It is well known that the Acts 8 account is used by Revivalists to defend their belief that ‘speaking in tongues’ equals ‘receiving the Holy Spirit’. However, neither general nor specific details properly or adequately align between chapters 2 and 8. In fact, when the Acts 2:38 proof-text is considered, the Acts 8 event becomes even more distant. Why, given that 2:38 clearly states that when a person repents (believes) and is baptised, that he or she will immediately receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; do we find that in Samaria, it was necessary for this same gift to be imparted through the hands of the Apostles? [See Acts 2:38].

The apparent disparity in the accounts of chapters 2 and 8, then considered in light of the events of chapters 10 and 19, makes perfect sense only when viewed in accordance with Luke’s purposes and emphases. The above passages, however, are openly contradictory when the Revivalist misunderstanding of Acts 2:38 is forced into the separate, individual contexts. It might aid one’s understanding to consider the following parallels, presented via a literary feature known as chiasmus in Greek, the use of which was intended to draw attention to an important aspect:

In the above four accounts, two matters are clear. First, when the Spirit descended on a people group in The Acts for the first time, Luke records that He did so in a wholly sovereign manner. This demonstrated the all-encompassing and divine nature of the New Covenant, mediated as it first was, however, through the Old Covenant nation of Israel. Later, when the gospel was preached to members whose standing in the Covenant Community might otherwise have been questioned or rejected by Jewish-Christians, the Holy Spirit was given in the authority of the apostles. This, rather than any form of outward manifestation was the singular emphasis that Luke intended for his reader(s) to grasp.

In The Acts, only two miraculous signs are normative, which attract people to the gospel: (1) the casting out of demons, and (2) the healing of the sick. Neither focuses significantly in the ministry of Revivalist churches. Likewise, only one outward or visible activity remains constant to indicate the inclusion of people into the Covenant Community – baptism by water. Quite simply, then, Revivalist emphases do not correspond to Luke’s own emphases. I will close this essay by offering the following observation: it seems to me that the Revivalist preoccupation with ‘tongues’ as a sign, runs perilously close to the very error that Simon Magus committed. The question has not changed: what is the true focus of Revivalist preaching? Is it Jesus, or is it ‘tongues’?

[1] Historiography is a genre of writing that presents information selectively. The function of such writing is fourfold: (1) to inform, (2) to convince, (3) to appeal, and (4) to entertain readers. Historiography is not history per se, but might be considered as “history with an agenda.”

[2] NIV

[3] A point or concept that determines the context of what is acceptable interpretation.

[4] “What applies in a less important case will certainly be applicable in a more important case”.

[5] Acts 1:26-2:8 being a good example of a specific promise made by Jesus to His apostles (cf. 1:8).

[6] “The presence of the same words in two passages is designed to call attention to their mutual relationship”.

[7] Which is the aorist inflection (denoting completed aspect) of the verb ‘pisteuo’, a word that connotes a saving belief.

[8] Acts 8:12.

[9] “To string pearls”, or to use a common western term: “proof-texting”.

[10] Acts 8:1-25 NIV.

[11] One noted early Church Father, Justin Martyr, wrote that Gitta was Simon Magus’ hometown.

[12] The structure of verse 12 indicates that it was the content of what Philip preached that led to the people believing him.

[13] The NIV translation “…he followed Philip everywhere” is rather imprecise. En proskarteron properly means, “to keep close company with.”

[14] The verb existato means to be ‘bewitched, or thrown into wonderment’.

[15] The Acts 8:14-16, NIV.

[16] A difficult point in a passage that is crucial to a correct understanding of that passage.

[17] The Acts 8:17, NIV.

[18] The Acts 8:18-23, NIV.