1. Into Samaria
In chapter 6, we were introduced to the seven who were chosen to handle the distribution of gifts for the needy among the early church. One of those was Stephen who went on to exercise a powerful ministry among the Jews but soon became the first martyr in the church. Here in chapter 8 we meet again the second of the seven, Philip, and see that he too exercises a ministry that is wider than the physical needs of the church.
In 21:8 he is called 'Philip the Evangelist' and this chapter shows why that name was given him. Philip is the first to take the gospel beyond Jerusalem and Judea and into Samaria. He went there and "proclaimed the Christ" (v.5). And his preaching was accompanied by miraculous signs which caught the people's attention and the whole city was full of joy as people were healed and delivered.
But as we see this, we need to notice how it was that Philip came to be in Samaria. In v.4 Luke shows that it was the result of the persecution that broke out against the church after the stoning of Stephen.
Some think the church had neglected the great commission in not reaching out sooner and conclude that this was the Lord's way of overcoming their reticence. There is nothing in the text to suggest that but what it does show is that though Satan may scheme, the Lord is still sovereign.
However much persecution the church may face, he remains in control and can use the opposition of men and evil to further his own gospel purposes. Men may do their worst, as they did to Stephen but God is God! That should give us great heart because the world is no different today and neither is God.
2. The Samaritans and Simon: Faith; True and False
As we've seen, Luke tells us there was great joy in the city as the result of the miracles that the Lord did through Philip. But such joy does not necessarily mean changed lives. The verses that follow show what is necessary for real change and how such a change may not always go hand in hand with such joy.
The people of Samaria had been impressed for some time by a man named Simon who "practised sorcery in the city" (v.9). He impressed them with his powers and they were in awe of him, even saying that "This man is the divine power known as the Great Power" (v.10).
But when they saw what Philip did and heard the message he preached, they believed the gospel and were baptised. They transfer their allegiance from Satan to Jesus. Now, at first sight, it might seem the same is being said of Simon, for Luke tells us that he too believed and was baptised. But Luke is careful in what he says about Simon. He doesn't tell us what Simon believed and deals with him separately from the Samaritans of the city.
That distinction becomes more telling in the following scene where the Spirit is given through Peter and John. Here Simon shows his true colours and asks to buy the ability to give the Spirit. Peter's response shows that this is not someone who is simply confused about the giving of the Spirit but someone who is calculating and hungry for power and influence. His heart is not right before God and, when confronted with his sin, he is not repentant, only scared.
Simon is impressed by what God can do in power but not with what he has done in Jesus. The point of the signs is to disclose truth about God and Jesus, to attest to the message being preached. Simon wanted the power but not the person.
Here is a salutary warning that is pertinent for today. People may be impressed by many things that accompany the gospel, even miracles where God chooses to give them, and yet may not be truly converted. Some have become what are called 'rice Christians'; that is, they professed to believe the message to gain the material benefits that were being offered with it. Such people want the care but not the cross and the Saviour.
So we see here that the gospel is advancing but the progress is not smooth. Yes, there is fruit but there is also failure, which is just what Jesus told us would happen in the parable of the sower and the seeds. We must expect the same today.
3. The Gift of the Spirit: Genuine Gospel Advance
The case of Simon raises questions about the nature of true faith but it also raises questions about the giving of God's Spirit. Were the Samaritans truly saved before they received the Spirit? If they were saved, is the Spirit still given separately from faith today? If they weren't truly saved, does that means you can sincerely believe and not be a Christian? And what was the role of Peter and John and, hence, of church leaders today? Is the Spirit given through men?
As questions like those arise in our minds, we do well to recall that this passage was not written to answer them! They were not the concerns that Luke was addressing and in many ways, although they are legitimate questions, they can mask the real significance of what is being said in the passage.
In handling questions like these, we need to remember a number of things. Firstly, the situation in Acts is quite unusual, it is still a formative period for the life of the church and things are still quite fluid. So we need to be careful in how we draw rules from what we find here; it isn't impossible to do so, but we do need to be careful how we do it.
In the second place, we need to understand, as one writer has said, that "It is God, not magicians or even apostles, who gives his own Spirit". Whatever is or isn't permanent in this scene, God is always sovereign. He won't be manipulated by us or our expectations.
Thirdly, this passage does not set a pattern even for the book of Acts. The Spirit is not always given via apostles, he is not always given post-baptism, there is not always a delay between faith and the giving of the Spirit and he is sometimes given before water-baptism has taken place. The rest of the NT helps us to answer the questions we may have that are not answered here: God gives his Spirit, not through intermediaries but personally and he does so to every person who truly believes in Jesus. That is the settled pattern.
So what is the point being made here? Why involve Peter and John? The important point being made has to do with the authentic nature of this first expansion of the gospel. Is it the real thing? Does it flow out of the authentic words and work of Jesus that the apostles were commissioned to witness to?
Those questions occur elsewhere in Acts and are answered by apostolic assessment. There are no apostles today but the point remains valid: all developments and claims regarding expansion must be tested by apostolic teaching. The work is only authentic and is only truly integrated where it is built upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20).
Taken together, this scene shows us that the gospel will make progress, despite setbacks. But all progress must be judged in Biblical terms, by apostolic teaching about the gospel. It is only authentic where it is truly based on "the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (v.12). And it is only right that we should ask the question, Do we pass the test?
