Session 2.16: January 26, 2024

Scripture Reading: Acts 8:1-25

And Saul agreed completely with killing him.

Now on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria. 2 Some devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul was trying to destroy the church; entering one house after another, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

4 Now those who had been forced to scatter went around proclaiming the good news of the word. 5 Philip went down to the main city of Samaria and began proclaiming the Christ to them. 6 The crowds were paying attention with one mind to what Philip said, as they heard and saw the miraculous signs he was performing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, were coming out of many who were possessed, and many paralyzed and lame people were healed. 8 So there was great joy in that city.

9 Now in that city was a man named Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. 10 All the people, from the least to the greatest, paid close attention to him, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called ‘Great.’” 11 And they paid close attention to him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. 16 (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.

18 Now Simon, when he saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power too, so that everyone I place my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! 21 You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! 22 Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. 23 For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.” 24 But Simon replied, “You pray to the Lord for me so that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”

25 So after Peter and John had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many Samaritan villages as they went.

Main Themes

Saul—An Introduction

Luke introduces Saul at the end of chapter 7. Spoiler alert: Saul is the man that becomes the Apostle Paul—one of the central figures of the New Testament. So, we should spend a few minutes thinking about him.

Luke introduces Saul like he does Barnabas, initially as a minor character to acclimate the reader. Nevertheless, we should ask, why would Saul be present during Stephen’s trial before the Sanhedrin?

Although we cannot know for sure, the most likely explanation is that Saul of Tarsus was a member of the radical wing of the Hellenist synagogue mentioned in Acts 6:9. Perhaps Paul was even one of those Jews who unsuccessfully challenged Stephen (see Acts 6:10).

We are also told that the witnesses who testified against Stephen “laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul.” This probably symbolizes recognition of Saul as a leader. This is surprising because Saul is described as young. We will discuss this more in a minute. First, let’s see what more we can learn about Saul from Paul’s letters.

Paul claims to be a Pharisee (Philippians 3: 5). Pharisees existed exclusively or almost exclusively in Israel, especially in Jerusalem. At the same time, his letters reveal comfort with Greek and thorough familiarity with the Septuagint. For one who spent enough time in Israel to be a Pharisee, this Greek aptitude also suggests an educated and hence economically stable family in urban Jerusalem. He could either be from a Diaspora Jewish family that settled in Jerusalem, be an aristocratic Pharisee like Gamaliel (whose family taught Greek), or both.

The portrait of Saul as zealous for the law to the point of persecuting the church perfectly fits Paul’s frequent summary of his preconversion past. Paul also tells us he “was advancing in Judaism beyond many of [his] contemporaries” (Galatians 1:14). Partly, this was probably because he studied under the esteemed teacher Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Nevertheless, the Acts narrative makes clear that Saul’s strategy regarding competing sects is quite different to his teacher’s. (This was not unusual in the ancient world. Wealthy families would send their children to study with renown teachers without expecting that the children would adopt all the teacher’s beliefs.)

As I mentioned above, Saul is “young.” What does this mean? Scholars differ on the precise sense of the term, and for good reason: various ancient sources employ it differently. Some sources define it as anyone from 24 to 40 years of age, others, ages twenty-one to twenty-eight; yet the term could also be applied to someone under twenty. Some Jewish pietists felt twenty was the age when a youth could discern morality on his own. For the rabbis and presumably most Jews, personal moral accountability began especially around age thirteen.

Given Saul’s role here, he is probably not a young adolescent merely beginning studies with Gamaliel or some other teacher. Instead, he has probably finished his studies. I think we can safely speculate Saul was somewhere in his mid-twenties to very early thirties.

Achieving leadership at his age would be difficult, since those who were young might have trouble gaining respect (in Israel and elsewhere). Young men were expected to have some limitations, for example, Classical Athens considered those below thirty to be young and hence easily misled and ineligible to sit in the city council. Nevertheless, exceptions were sometimes appropriate, and some young men were allowed to lead. This could result in self-assurance on the part of the youth and envy and animosity on the part of other members of the community.

That the most violent zeal would be associated with a young man would not surprise ancient hearers (or today’s readers). This zeal could be used by the older leaders. Some elders might have allowed the younger hotheads to take care of details, while the elders maintained their own dignity.

Chapter 8—Introduction

Chapters 6 and 7 focus on Stephen, one of the seven so-called deacons. Chapter 8 focuses on another one of these leaders: Philip. Stephen lays the groundwork by teaching that God is not bound to the sacred land or the temple. Philip implements the vision by evangelizing Samaritans and the first fully Gentile convert, an African official.

Recall the words of Jesus at the very beginning of Acts, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Philip reaches both Samaritans and a representative from the “ends of the earth.” (Geographically, Philip advances the gospel north to Samaria and south to Africans.)

Persecution and Scattering

Saul persecutes the church harshly. The effect of the persecution, however, is the dispersing of the church, fulfilling Acts 1:8 more fully but in a manner undoubtedly not expected by the apostles. This outcome testifies to God’s sovereign activity even through opposition. Let’s consider these points further.

Saul’s persecution of the church is undoubtedly historical. Paul himself admits participation in violent persecution of Christians, mentioning it regularly in his letters (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6).

The persecution has the effect of scattering “all” except the apostles. A major interpretive crux in this passage is what Luke means by “all.” Few scholars take “all” literally, and most assume that the object of the persecution was the Hellenists. This proposal is also unlikely. If only the Hellenists were scattered, saying “all the church” is an unusual way to specify this. Moreover, this view is based on an incorrect (and now outdated) assumption that Hebrews and Hellenists had large theological differences regarding the temple.

So what does “all” mean? “All the church” is surely hyperbole, which is a typical use of the word “all” by Luke (e.g., Luke 1:6; 2:1; 5:17; Acts 1:1). Nevertheless, it clearly conveys the idea that a large number of Christians left Jerusalem. There is no indication that any particular group of Christians was more prone to flee. (We could speculate that more Hellenist Christians left Israel than other Christians. The story focuses on Hellenists moving to the Diaspora. Moreover, Hellenists may have had more connections outside Israel, making the move easier.)

We should also ask, why are the apostles explicitly excepted from the scattering? Maybe Saul avoids persecuting the apostles because of his teacher Gamaliel’s words in their favor (recall Acts 5). Maybe Saul respected them as miracle-working men. Both of these proposals seem unlikely because in the ancient world ringleaders would be persecuted first. The more likely explanation is the apostles remained and went “underground.” (Notice the text does not say the apostles escaped persecution. It only says the apostles remained in Jerusalem.)

Sometimes we forget the sacrifice made even by the Christians who fled. Some of them would have abandoned property, probably permanently as it could have been deemed legally abandoned or been confiscated. Confiscation was often concomitant with other criminal sentences.

Saul persecuted believers from house to house. Homes were viewed as private. Persecuting someone at home was more grievous than public arrest. Persecuting someone at home intruded upon the domestic sphere, associated with women. In the ancient world, women were less often punished than men, but exceptions were made, including times they were killed for their husbands’ rebellion.

The term used to describe Saul’s persecuting activity was a strong term that could apply to torture, military devastation, or outrages.

Mourning and Burying Stephen

With all this in mind, we should notice the courage of those who bury Stephen. Helping a prisoner or otherwise identifying with a condemned person could be dangerous. The fact that Stephen’s burial was allowed is not surprising. For Jew and Gentile alike, to be left unburied was a horrific fate that was rarely imposed upon anyone. Jews did not believe in withholding burial for any circumstances. It contradicted their law (Deuteronomy 21: 23). However, the fact that Stephen’s death was allowed to be mourned is surprising. Jewish tradition, at least as we know it from later evidence, did not permit open mourning for those executed by approval of a Jewish court. If that later evidence is representative of Stephen’s time, then the open mourning is evidence that the Sanhedrin did not intend to execute Stephen immediately. It was an unofficial lynching that ended his life.

God’s Use of Persecution

Saul’s persecution of the church lead to Philip’s ministry and that of untold scattered believers. Saul was a vessel of God before he was ever Paul, though an unwitting agent who merited destruction. (In the Old Testament, God used Assyria and Babylon as his “clubs” to punish the wicked, although Assyria and Babylon were also wicked and were eventually judged.)

Scattering from Jerusalem as a result of Stephen’s persecution proved a major factor in spreading the Jesus movement. Nevertheless, this was probably unexpected for the apostles and early church. As we have discussed throughout Acts, the Old Testament prophesied that through Israel all the nations would be blessed. But early Jewish Christians probably guessed that Gentile nations would be drawn to Israel’s exalted glory after it accepted its Messiah. Instead, as we can see in retrospect, God’s plan was accomplished through Israel’s rejection of its Messiah.

A Samaritan Town

Philips goes to a Samaritan town or, as our translation puts it, “the main city of Samaria.” As the NET translators acknowledge, the word “main” is not in the text—they provide it for clarity. Moreover, the authenticity of the definite article “the” is debated. So, the text either reads “the city of Samaria” or “a city of Samaria.” The NET translators think the city described is Sebaste.

The main city of Samaria most likely refers to the principal city of Samaria, rebuilt by Herod the Great as Sebaste in honor of Augustus . . . . This is the best option if the article before “city” is taken as original. If the reading without the article is taken as autographic, then another city may be in view: Gitta, the hometown of Simon Magus according to Justin Martyr . . . .

Most scholars reject the Sebaste proposition. Luke always uses “Samaria” for the region of the Samaritan people and Sebaste was a Gentile city.

Samaritans

The significance of Philip’s activity in Samaria this will be lost on us if we do not discuss who were the Samaritans. As one website explains:

After King Solomon ruled over the Israelites—God’s people—the unwise actions of his son Rehoboam in the tenth century BC led to a schism in which the kingdom was split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, each with its own king.

Both kingdoms devolved into corruption and sin, despite repeated warnings from prophets sent by God. Thus, God warned, they would be overtaken by conquerors. The northern kingdom fared worse than the southern kingdom, with a long line of wicked rulers. It didn’t help that the temple, where God’s people were to worship, was located in the southern kingdom.

In 721 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians. Many of the people of Israel were led off to Assyria as captives, but some remained in the land and intermarried with foreigners planted there by the Assyrians. These half-Jewish, half-Gentile people became known as the Samaritans.

Because of their shared heritage, Samaritans worshipped the same God as Jews and shared roughly the same Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Also because of this shared heritage, Samaritans were not Jews but were not Gentiles either. For example, Josephus once refers to them as Jewish apostates. A major point of contention between Samaritans and Jews concerned their respective holy sites. Samaritans regarded Gerizim as the holiest of mountains, not Jerusalem. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed in 128 B.C.

It is this proximity yet distinctiveness between the two groups that fueled competition and animosity. Jewish people did not think highly of Samaritans and did not trust them. Jewish tradition indicates that hostilities had begun immediately after some Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. A story goes that Samaritans convinced Romans to prevent Jews from rebuilding the temple in Hadrian’s reign. The hostilities reached a boiling point when, according to a Jewish report, some Samaritans in the early first century defiled the Jerusalem temple one night with human bones. This provided the reason for Jews prohibiting Samaritans’ attendance at the Jerusalem Passover.

Samaritans’ very insistence to be descendants of Israel rendered their temple all the more suspect to Jews. Some Jews extended more leeway to Gentiles, but if Samaritans were truly Jews, then they should worship nowhere else but the temple.

Keep this in mind when you read that Philip proclaimed Christ to them. You mean, without serious catechism first? Without teaching them and requiring them to acknowledge the true temple? The true Judaism? The true people of God? To embrace Samaritans “as they were” was to agree not to make the temple or Jerusalem—the cornerstones of the Jewish faith—matters of division.

To add further shock and scandal, Samaritans were baptized! Why is this surprising? Recall from our prior discussions of baptism, that despite the many water purification rituals practiced by Jews, full-immersion baptism was reserved for proselyte Gentiles. The early church, following the footsteps of John the Baptist, seems to have repurposed this ritual to signify full conversion and acceptance into the Christian faith—even when coming from Judaism. Because Samaritans were already circumcised (remember, they were not Gentiles), Jewish baptism would have been inappropriate for them. So, this is Christian baptism that is in view. What we have here is Philip welcoming Samaritans to the true faith by baptism without requiring Samaritans’ confession of loyalty to the Jerusalem temple versus their heretical allegiance to Mount Gerizim. Philip successfully evangelized Samaritans with the good news of the kingdom and Jesus Christ.

Samaritans Expected a Messiah

Would the idea of a Christ-figure make sense to Samaritans?

Samaritans may have heard Philip’s preaching in terms of their own traditions of the Taheb—the Samaritan concept most equivalent to the Jewish Messiah. Yet, these two concepts were not the same. Samaritans did not speak of a Davidic Messiah or of an anointed, messianic agent but of the Taheb, the “Restorer.” He would be like Moses. He would rule. He would restore the era of divine favor that had ended after Moses.

The text does not indicate that Philip corrected the Samaritan tradition. Perhaps the text is simply omitting those discussions for the sake of brevity. But, considering the vehement differences between Jews and Samaritans, one might conclude that Philip did not attempt to convince the Samaritans about the Jewish concept of Messiah. Instead, Philip may have repurposed their expectation of a Restorer to explain Christ. If so, this has missiological implications.

Miracles and Exorcisms

As we have read in Acts about other bold proclaimers of the gospel, Philip performed miracles. We are told he healed many paralyzed and lame people. Philip probably healed other conditions too, but cases of paralysis were the most dramatic and noteworthy examples.

Philip also performed exorcisms. Ancients accepted the possibility of exorcisms, as do many people today. The “loud shouts” of the unclean spirits fit Jesus’ experience.

As Jesus stepped ashore, a certain man from the town met him who was possessed by demons. For a long time this man had worn no clothes and had not lived in a house, but among the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, fell down before him, and shouted with a loud voice, “Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of the Most High God! I beg you, do not torment me!” Luke 8:27-28

Exorcisms feature in stories from the early church. For example, Irenaeus attests that many nonbelievers in his day became Christians after experiencing successful exorcisms. Exorcisms also feature prominently in modern day stories. For example, John Wesley (the co-founder of the Methodist movement) was reported to have cast out demons from those involuntarily possessed, yielding deliverance. Pentecostal and charismatic churches report this kind of activity constantly. Many missiologists do as well. Surely some of these exorcism reports are false, but almost as certainly some are true. The Bible undeniably speaks of spiritual realities.

The Holy Spirit

In a rather strange turn of events, the Samaritans “accept the word” (Acts 8:14) and are baptized (Acts 8:12), yet they do not receive the Holy Spirit. Particularly in the letters of Paul (but, truly, in all other New Testament author’s letters), conversion and receiving the Spirit are simultaneous if not synonymous. Was the Samaritans’ conversion defective? If so, the text does not even hint as much. At the same time, we must grapple with the fact that Peter and John travel together to Samaria to convey the Holy Spirit. Before we get deep into pneumatology, let’s acknowledge what seems evident in the text.

The apostles and church in Jerusalem seem compelled to certify that the propagation of the Jesus movement to Samaritans is genuine. This may have been for the benefit of Samaritans but also (and perhaps particularly) for the Jerusalem church. Is God acting outside of Israel? Only one way to find out.

I think we can also say with confidence that the text makes clear that the Holy Spirit is of paramount importance to “complete the mission.” God’s ratification of his kingdom and promises is the Holy Spirit.

Now to the controversy. For whatever the reason, the Spirit is apparently received subsequent to conversion in the Samaritan story. This has occasioned considerable discussion. Historically, various groups have advocated a second experience of the Spirit, often citing this passage, including Anglo-Catholics and Catholics with their views of confirmation; Puritan and Reformed Sealers; Wesleyan and Holiness groups; and classical Pentecostals. Yet, most Christians would agree that the Holy Spirit is received, at least in some sense, at conversion or baptism.

In Acts, we see both a reception of the Spirit at conversion and a later, empowering reception of the Spirit.

I will not attempt to settle the debate. Instead, I will point out a few things that I think are worthy of consideration. Suggesting that the Samaritan conversion was incomplete until they were visited by apostles is a hard position to hold. One must claim that a person can embrace God’s message joyfully, believe, and be baptized yet require the imposition of apostolic hands to produce genuine conversion. (I cannot think of a single Christian denomination that believes in laying of hands for conversion.) Moreover, the apostles accept the Samaritans’ conversion instead of rebaptizing them. There is no hint in the text that the conversion is defective or incomplete. (Some argue that initially when Samaritans “believe,” it only means intellectual assent. But Luke does not normally use the word believe in that sense.) Finally, we should not assume that all spiritual realities must behave according to unbendable norms. For example, people who lie to the church today do not drop dead like Ananias and Sapphira. Modern preachers do not walk the streets healing the lame and paralyzed. Perhaps the granting of the Spirit to Samaritans was delayed for a specific an unusual purpose. The fact that Luke mentions that Samaritans did not receive the Spirit at baptism suggests that was the normal expectation. The most common and plausible explanation is that God waited for apostolic ratification to maintain the unity of the Jerusalem and Samaritan churches.

As a side note, notice the exciting challenge presented by telling true stories. Other New Testament writers address the Spirit theologically, always connecting the Spirit to conversion. Luke recounts not simply the theological ideal but the experience of early Christians. He is the only New Testament writer to do so. Therefore we should weigh his narrative seriously. (I am not suggesting Luke’s superiority to other New Testament writers or that there is contradiction between them. What I am saying is that when we address a topic in abstract terms, we might unintentionally convey a sense of simplicity and uniformity that is not consistent with experience.)

As a closing note, modern theological discussion about timing can distract us from hearing Luke’s own theological emphasis. Few expected the Spirit to be conferred widely in this age, still fewer through these human agents, and—worst of all—Jewish people had no expectation that this would happen among Samaritans!

Simon the Sorcerer

In chapter 8, we read of a man named Simon. “Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claim[ed] to be someone great” (Acts 8:9). The narrative presents Simon as similar to Philip in many ways. Here is a chart provided in Craig Keener’s commentary on Acts:

Simon and Philip are similar yet very different, much like a hero and villain in a comic book. The key contrast between Simon and Philip is that Simon claims to be someone great, seeking his own status, while Philip acts only “in the name of Jesus.”

Such contrast between true and false sign-workers evoke biblical portraits of Moses confronting Pharaoh’s magicians and Elijah confronting the false prophets on Mount Carmel.

When Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, they did so, just as the Lord had commanded them—Aaron threw down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a snake. Then Pharaoh also summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the magicians of Egypt by their secret arts did the same thing. Each man threw down his staff, and the staffs became snakes. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted. Exodus 7:10-13

Elijah approached all the people and said, “How long are you going to be paralyzed by indecision? If the Lord is the true God, then follow him, but if Baal is, follow him!” But the people did not say a word. Elijah said to them: “I am the only prophet of the Lord who is left, but there are 450 prophets of Baal. Let them bring us two bulls. Let them choose one of the bulls for themselves, cut it up into pieces, and place it on the wood. But they must not set it on fire. I will do the same to the other bull and place it on the wood. But I will not set it on fire. Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God.” All the people responded, “This will be a fair test.” 1 Kings 18:21-24

Modern people (Christians included) may be surprised to find out that encounters like that of Philip and Simon are still very much reported today. In fact, Missiologists often cite the relevance of “power encounters” for reaching cultures that affirm superhuman powers.

Magic vs Miracles

By the way, how do we distinguish magic from miracles? I think we often read Simon’s story and some similar tales in the Bible but do not stop to ask this question. The difference is not always clear, but we can point to some distinctions. Magic generally seeks to manipulate spirits or forces whereas religion and miracles do not. Magic is generally used for selfish purposes, although miracles (such as those of healing) could be accused of the same. Nevertheless, the broad distinction remains, i.e., whether people believed that the power was used for personal advantage or the common good. (This might evident as a practical matter: did the sorcerer or miracle-worker expect payment?) Ancient peoples often used another criterion: supernatural activity in alien groups was magic, while supernatural activity in their own group was not. This last subject standard to differentiate magic and miracles is not particularly useful.

I think the first distinction is the most important: is the supernatural event the result of an “adept” who is able to manipulate the world, including its spiritual and divine realities. If it works like a science of the supernatural, in which specific requirements must be met to achieve a result, then it probably falls under the category of magic. The socioreligious context is helpful in determining whether a supernatural event is magic or not. Recall the miracles of Jesus. The sociocultural context was Jesus preaching about the one true God and his imminent kingdom. The context makes clear that the miracles are brought upon by God—neither nature nor God are being manipulated into bringing upon the supernatural events.

We should also note that ancient peoples often recognized magicians as charlatans. Sadly, we often speaks of ancient peoples as naïve idiots who believed any superstition. This was not the case.

One last point on magic: how did Jews view magic? In Acts 8:9 and 11, Luke seems to employ a pejorative word for magic, associated with Medo-Persian astrologers and diviners who were often considered quacks or viewed negatively. The word also ties to the story of Daniel 2, which portrays these magicians as fraudulent or powerless. Nevertheless, some Jews had embraced magic—even if magic was condemned in the Old Testament and by many rabbis. Jewish sources sometimes associated magic with fallen angels or Satan. Some rabbis embraced magic as the science of their era.

Simon’s Wickedness

I think a key fact to understand the interaction between Philip, the apostles, and Simon, is what exactly Simon claimed to be. Simon claimed to be someone “great” (Acts 8:9). This word by no means necessarily implies a divine title, but it is consistent with one. We gain more insight from the people calling him “the power of God that is called ‘Great’” (Acts 8:10). Potentially, this could be translated as “the Great Power of God.” So, many scholars believe that Simon was not simply claiming to be someone great in a generic sense but to be divine.

One could retort: surely Samaritans were not calling Simon divine. They were monotheistic! Yes, Samaritans were monotheistic and intensely religious. However, they were also hellenized, a hallmark of which was religious syncretism. By this point in their history, Samaritans may have assimilated other deities and viewed Simon as one of them (or at least an avatar of one of them).

Before we review Simon’s falling from grace, figuratively speaking, let’s remember his believing into grace.

Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed. Acts 8:13

Perhaps Simon was not converted to begin with. Nevertheless, we are told he “believed,” no different (at least in language) than the other Samaritans. How are we to make sense of this? We could consider a recurring theme in the gospels, particularly in John: faith in response to signs is only the most basic level of faith. Persevering faith is the kind of faith that really matters. We might also recall the parable of the sower.

Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground where they did not have much soil. They sprang up quickly because the soil was not deep. But when the sun came up, they were scorched, and because they did not have sufficient root, they withered. Other seeds fell among the thorns, and they grew up and choked them. But other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty. The one who has ears had better listen! Matthew 13:3b-9

“So listen to the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches what was sown in his heart; this is the seed sown along the path. The seed sown on rocky ground is the person who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he has no root in himself and does not endure; when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, immediately he falls away. The seed sown among thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing. But as for the seed sown on good soil, this is the person who hears the word and understands. He bears fruit, yielding a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown.” Matthew 13:18-23

Regardless of whether Simon was a true believer or not, upon the apostles visit to Samaria, Simon somehow “saw” that people received the Spirit, and this reception was dramatic enough to provoke his desire for the gift. Simon offered them money for the gift. I think everyone, at a gut level, recoils at the thought. Should the gift of communion with the one and only good and gracious God be something to buy and sell? Absolutely not. It is inconceivable.

At a worldview level, Simon and the apostles are at odds. Simon seeks a power he can manipulate and that could lead to personal advantage. Philip and the apostles act only on behalf of (in the name of) God. The apostles will tolerate no syncretism and chastise Simon severely. They tell Simon that anyone who thinks he can purchase “God’s gift” fundamentally misunderstands God. Simon is urged to repent—to truly convert. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, early church fathers, claimed to know Simon’s fate. According to them, Simon did not convert.

As the sin of Ananias could have marred the reputation and effectiveness of the early church if not confronted and terminated, Simon presented a similar threat.

Simon responds with a request for prayer. There are similar scenes in the Old Testament in which those confronted with judgement asked a godly man to pray for them, the hope being that God would hear a holy man’s prayer. At least once the prayer was effective:

When the king heard the prophet’s message that he had cried out against the altar in Bethel, Jeroboam took his hand from the altar and pointed it saying, “Seize him!” Then the hand that he had pointed at him stiffened up, and he could not pull it back. Meanwhile the altar split open, and the ashes poured from the altar in fulfillment of the sign the prophet had given with the Lord’s message. The king responded to the prophet, “Seek the favor of the Lord your God and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored.” So the prophet sought the Lord’s favor and the king’s hand was restored as it was at first. 1 Kings 13:4-6

We do not have Peter’s response to Simon’s request for prayer. However, Simon’s issue does not seem like the type of problem that someone else’s prayer could “fix.”

In Acts 8:25, concluding Luke’s section on the Samaritan mission, the apostles follow Philip’s example. This makes clear that salvation has truly gone out to Samaria.