Download MAGICAL MANIPULATION OF THE GODS THROUGH TRICKS AND

MAGICAL MANIPULATION OF THE GODS THROUGH TRICKS AND MONEY,
OR HUMILITY BEFORE THE GOD WHO ACTS IN HIS OWN WAY IN HISTORY?
Acts 8:4-25
8.4 Οἱ μὲν ον διασπαρέντες διλθον εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον. 8.5 Φίλιππος δὲ
κατελθὼν εἰς [τὴν] πόλιν τς Σαμαρείας ἐκήρυσσεν αὐτος τὸν Χριστόν. 8.6 προσεχον δὲ
οἱ ὄχλοι τος λεγομένοις ὑπὸ το Φιλίππου ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν τ ἀκούειν αὐτοὺς καὶ βλέπειν τὰ
σημεα ἃ ἐποίει· 8.7 πολλοὶ γὰρ τν ἐχόντων πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα βοντα φων μεγάλῃ
ἐξήρχοντο, πολλοὶ δὲ παραλελυμένοι καὶ χωλοὶ ἐθεραπεύθησαν· 8.8 ἐγένετο δὲ πολλὴ χαρὰ
ἐν τ πόλει ἐκείνῃ.
(4) Then therefore, those who were scattered abroad went through [the country],
announcing the Word as Good News. (5) Then Philipp, having gone down to [the] City of
Samaria, proclaimed to them the Anointed King. (6) Then the crowds paid close attention to
the things being said by Phillip with one mind, as they listened and saw the signs which he was
doing. (7) For many of those having unclean spirits, crying out with a great voice, were
coming out; while many who had been paralyzed and crippled were healed. (8) Then there
came great joy in that city.
8.9 Α
̓ νὴρ δέ τις ὀνόματι Σίμων προϋπρχεν ἐν τ πόλει μαγεύων καὶ ἐξιστάνων τὸ
ἔθνος τς Σαμαρείας, λέγων εναί τινα ἑαυτὸν μέγαν, 8.10  προσεχον πάντες ἀπὸ μικρο
ἕως μεγάλου λέγοντες, Οτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις το θεο ἡ καλουμένη Μεγάλη. 8.11
προσεχον δὲ αὐτ διὰ τὸ ἱκαν χρόνῳ τας μαγείαις ἐξεστακέναι αὐτούς. 8.12 ὅτε δὲ
ἐπίστευσαν τ Φιλίππῳ εὐαγγελιζομένῳ περὶ τς βασιλείας το θεο καὶ το ὀνόματος Ἰ ησο
Χριστο, ἐβαπτίζοντο ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυνακες. 8.13 ὁ δὲ Σίμων καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπίστευσεν καὶ
βαπτισθεὶς ν προσκαρτερν τ Φιλίππῳ, θεωρν τε σημεα καὶ δυνάμεις μεγάλας
γινομένας ἐξίστατο.
(9) Then a certain man by [the] name of Simon had earlier been practicing magic in the
city, and had been astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming himself to be some great one.
(10) All, from small to great were paying close attention, saying, "This person is the power of
God, which is called 'Great'!" (11) Then they were paying close attention to him for some time,
being astonished by his magic tricks. (12) Then when they believed in Phillip, announcing as
Good News [the things] concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, Anointed
King, both men and women were being immersed. (13) Then Simon himself also believed,
and having been immersed, he was holding closely to Phillip; and observing both signs and
great acts of power being done, he was astonished.
8.14 ̓Ακούσαντες δὲ οἱ ἐν ΄Ιεροσολύμοις ἀπόστολοι ὅτι δέδεκται ἡ Σαμάρεια τὸν λόγον
το θεο, ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς Πέτρον καὶ ̓Ιωάννην, 8.15 οἵτινες καταβάντες
προσηύξαντο περὶ αὐτν ὅπως λάβωσιν πνεμα ἅγιον· 8.16 οὐδέπω γὰρ ν ἐπ̓ οὐδενὶ
αὐτν ἐπιπεπτωκός, μόνον δὲ βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπρχον εἰς τὸ ὄνομα το κυρίου ̓Ιησο. 8.17
τότε ἐπετίθεσαν τὰς χερας ἐπ̓ αὐτούς καὶ ἐλάμβανον πνεμα ἅγιον.
(14) Then the Ambassadors in Jerusalem, having heard that Samaria had received the
Word of God, authoritatively sent to them Peter and John. (15) These men, having come
down, prayed on their behalf, that they might receive [the] Set-apart Spirit. (16) For it had not
339
yet fallen upon any of them--but they had only been immersed into the name of the Lord
Jesus. (17) Then they placed their hands upon them, and they received [the] Set-apart Spirit.
8.18 ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Σίμων ὅτι διὰ τς ἐπιθέσεως τν χειρν τν ἀποστόλων δίδοται τὸ
πνεμα, προσήνεγκεν αὐτος χρήματα 8.19 λέγων, Δότε κἀμοὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἵνα  ἐὰν
ἐπιθ τὰς χερας λαμβάνῃ πνεμα ἅγιον.
(18) Then Simon, having seen that through the placing of the hands of the
Ambassadors upon [people] the Spirit is being given, brought money to them (19) saying,
"Give me also this authority, so that on whomever I may place my hands, he may receive [the]
Set-apart Spirit!"
8.20 Πέτρος δὲ επεν πρὸς αὐτόν, Τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὅτι τὴν
δωρεὰν το θεο ἐνόμισας διὰ χρημάτων κτσθαι. 8.21 οὐκ ἔστιν σοι μερὶς οὐδὲ κλρος ἐν τ
λόγῳ τούτῳ, ἡ γὰρ καρδία σου οὐκ ἔστιν εὐθεα ἔναντι το θεο. 8.22 μετανόησον ον ἀπὸ
τς κακίας σου ταύτης καὶ δεήθητι το κυρίου εἰ ἄρα ἀφεθήσεταί σοι ἡ ἐπίνοια τς καρδίας
σου, 8.23 εἰς γὰρ χολὴν πικρίας καὶ σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας ὁρ σε ὄντα.
(20) Then Peter said to him, "Your money, together with you, let it be for destruction!
Because you proposed to acquire the gift of God with money! (21) There is neither part nor lot
for you in this matter, for your heart is not right before God! (22) Turn around, therefore, from
this your wickedness, and ask from the Lord, if perhaps the intention of your heart may be
forgiven you; (23) for I see that you are into bitter gall, and a bond of wrong relationship!"
8.24 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Σίμων επεν, Δεήθητε ὑμες ὑπὲρ ἐμο πρὸς τὸν κύριον ὅπως
μηδὲν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ̓ ἐμὲ ν εἰρήκατε.
(24) Then Simon, answering, said, "Will you (people) please ask on my behalf to the
Lord, so that nothing which you have said may come upon me?"
8.25 Οἱ μὲν ον διαμαρτυράμενοι καὶ λαλήσαντες τὸν λόγον το κυρίου ὑπέστρεφον
εἰς ΄Ιεροσόλυμα, πολλάς τε κώμας τν Σαμαριτν εὐηγγελίζοντο.
(25) Then therefore, having given [their] solemn testimony, and having spoken the Word
of the Lord, they were returning to Jerusalem; and they were announcing Good News to many
villages of the Samaritans.
Text with Commentary:
(4) Then therefore,1 those who were scattered abroad2 went through [the country],
opening phrase, οἱ μὲν ον, hoi men oun, occurs again at the beginning of verse
25. The phrase is found at John 19:24, and then elsewhere in the Greek New Testament
only in the Book of Acts, where it occurs 19 times: 1:6; 2:41; 5:41; 8:4 (here); 8:25; 9:31
(singular feminine nominative article); 11:19; 12:5 (singular masculine nominative article);
15:3; 15:30; 16:5 (feminine plural nominative article); 17:30 (accusative plural masculine
1This
340
announcing the Word3 as Good News.4
article); 23:18 (singular masculine nominative article); 23:22 (singular masculine nominative
article); 23:31; 25:4 (singular masculine nominative article); 26:4 (singular feminine accusative
article); 28:5 (singular masculine nominative article). We conclude from this survey that this
phrase is truly
a trait of Luke’s writing, at least in the Book of Acts; and since the phrase is not found in the
Gospel of Luke, it could be used as an indication of a difference of authorship.
2Compare Acts 8:1 and 11:19 for the verb diaspeiro, “to scatter,” here found in the
participial form, διασπαρέντες, diasparentes, “having been scattered.”
3E (Laudianus), a corrector of the Old Latin Manuscript p, t, w, the Clementine Vulgate, the
Peshitta Syriac, and some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic interpolate tou theou, “of the
God.” The copyist / translators do not simply repeat what they find written in the original
manuscript--they exercise the freedom to add to it, “enhancing” it, in order to help the readers
understanding--but not changing the meaning of Luke’s narrative. See in the very next verse
where the phrase “proclaiming as Good News the Word” is exchanged for “he preached to
them the Anointed King.” We see here the equivalence of “the Word” and “the Anointed King.”
This theology is very close to that of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel, with its identification
of Jesus with “the Word.”
4For this wording, “going through the country” in terms of missionary activity, compare Acts
8:40 and 9:32. The wording in Greek is very important for Christian history. These early
disciples went through the countryside euaggelizomenoi ton logon, "evangelizing the Word
(or matter)," or, as we have translated, "announcing the Word [or matter] as Good News." The
"Word" is the story of what had happened in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus
the Lord, the Anointed King. That story was told as "Good News" to everyone who would
listen. To hear that story, and to believe it, responding to it with obedience, meant a
transformation of life--from sin to forgiveness, from despair to hope, from meaninglessness to
vibrant mission and purpose. These scattered, persecuted followers of Jesus became the first
"evangelists"--a word that many today depreciate, but a word that captures the vital heart of
church growth and mission in the world.
Bruce noted that "As the old Israel had its Diaspora among the Gentiles, so must the
new people of God be dispersed." (p. 176) He referred to Jacob [”James”] 1:1, and 1 Peter
1:1, both of which evidently speak of a Christian "dispersion," meaning these very people who
had been scattered all over the first century world as a result of the persecution in Jerusalem.
It was to them, according to this understanding, that Jacob ("James") and Peter wrote their
"encyclical" letters, addressing all Christians throughout the world as a new "dispersion," now
scattered, but one day to be gathered once again as one people in their eternal, heavenly
home of the future.
McGarvey stated that “The preaching here referred to was doubtless both public and
private preaching, the latter being participated in by women as well as men.” (p. 134) He
wrote long before the modern “Women’s Liberation” movement had any noticeable impact on
biblical studies; such a comment will not go unquestioned today! The text simply states that
“those who had been scattered abroad” went through the country announcing the Word as
Good News--and unless we have reason to believe that only men were subjected to the
scattering, we should assume that everyone--including the women--were involved in the
341
(5) Then Philipp,5 having gone down to [the]6 City of Samaria,7 proclaimed to them the
announcing of the Good News! To read into this the idea of “private preaching” is to import a
later, male chauvinist view into this text!
McGarvey added that “...Before Stephen’s death it was not known by experience how
their new faith would sustain them in a dying hour. Now one of their number had tried the
dread reality. He had died praying for his murderers, and committing his spirit to the Son of
man, whom he saw in a heavenly vision...It was a fitting and most providential preparation for
the fiery ordeal through which the whole body of the believers was immediately compelled to
pass. They could now go forward in their tear-dimmed course without fear or care for that
within the grave or beyond it.” (p. 135)
5See Acts 6:5-6 for the first mention of this Philipp.
6The definite article before Samaria is read by P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus,
Minuscule 1175 and a few other Greek manuscripts; it is omitted by Ephraemi Rescriptus,
Bezae, E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, and the “Majority Text.” The evidence is
too evenly divided for a confident decision--thus the placing of the definite article in
parentheses in modern editions of the Greek New Testament. We think the evidence weighs
on the side of the article being original. But whether or not to read the article with nouns and
names fluctuates throughout the textual tradition. Here, we conclude that the article was in the
original, and later copyists omitted it because of their conviction that it was not necessary, and
because they felt free to either add it or omit it as they saw fit.
7Luke does not give any details concerning this city, whether it was the City of Samaria,
i.e., Sebaste, or simply "a city in the area of Samaria" (some manuscripts have the definite
article, others do not--see the preceding footnote). We normally think of the modern City of
Nablus, or Shechem, with the ruins of ancient Samaria to its northwest. But Justin Martyr who
was a native of Samaria, and one of the early "Apologists," held that Simon came from a town
in Samaria called "Gitta," rather than Sebaste. See Metzger’s discussion on pp. 355-56. For
an earlier mention of Samaria see Acts 1:8.
Bruce observed that "Between the populations of Judaea and Samaria there was a
long-standing cleavage, going back to very early times. In spite of attempts to effect a
reconciliation in post-exilic times, the cleavage was widened by the Samaritans' erection on
their sacred hill Gerizim of a rival temple to the restored Temple at Jerusalem. The Judaeans
regarded the Samaritans as racial and religious half-breeds because of the foreign settlers
planted in Samaria by the Assyrians to take the place of the upper classes of the land who
were deported at the time of the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel. Before long, these
settlers abandoned their former pagan worship and became indistinguishable from the
Israelites among whom they dwelt, but their alien origin continued to be used by the Jews as a
pretext for refusing to have any dealings with them. The Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus I
(135-104 B.C.) conquered the Samaritans and destroyed their schismatic temple. With the
Roman conquest of Palestine, the Samaritans were liberated from Judaean domination, but
the New Testament bears ample witness to the unfriendly relations which persisted between
the two groups." (p. 176-77)
Not only the New Testament, however, testifies to this cleavage--the Jewish Mishnah
uses the word "Samaritan" as almost a curse-word, and in its legislation considers any
Samaritan as "unclean" and unworthy of fellowship with the orthodox Jews. Thus we may well
understand that what Phillip is doing as described here in Acts 8 is a very revolutionary step--it
342
Anointed King.8 (6) Then the crowds paid close attention9 to the things being said by Phillip10
is a crossing over of an ancient barrier between the Jews and the Samaritans--under the very
natural impression that Jesus seriously intended his Good News for all peoples of the earth-including these "half-breed" Samaritans! Marshall comments that "Behind the narrative...we
may well see the overcoming of the hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans through
their common faith in Jesus, and it is in this sense that the story may be seen as a step
towards the greater problem of bringing Jews and Gentiles together. If this is correct, it may
provide the clue to the undoubted problem presented by the fact that the Samaritan believers
did not receive the Spirit until the apostles laid hands on them. They were thus brought into
fellowship with the whole church, and not merely with the Hellenist section of it." (p. 153)
Once again we see the Church filled with the Spirit, and its miraculous gifts, as the
people of God cross an age-old barrier. In many ways the Book of Acts shows its readers
that this is the realm of the Spirit--where the old habits and traditions and ways of life are being
abandoned, barriers are being broken, and people of faith step out boldly across new frontiers-there the Spirit makes its presence manifest in demonstrations of power!
8In footnote 4 we have seen the phrase "announcing the Word as Good News." Here we
have another important phrase used to describe the early proclamatory task of the Church.
Philipp "was proclaiming to them the Anointed King" (ἐκήρυσσεν αὐτος τὸν Χριστόν,
ekerussen autois ton Christon). Compare similar language in Acts 17:3; 18:5 and 28.
Philipp was like a "herald," who had a Message to speak boldly and clearly to all who would
listen. And that Message is summed up as "the Anointed King." This "proclaiming" would be
the equivalent of "announcing as Good News." And the subject of the proclamation, the
Anointed King, is the equivalent of "the Word [or, Matter]." We insist that for the Book of Acts,
what God has done (and said) through Jesus, the Anointed King, is “the Word of God,” the
“Good News.” Not every word, spoken by every writer or every speaker in the New
Testament documents is to be interpreted as the “Word of God.” Rather, that “Word of God”
is centered in Jesus, the Anointed King, and what God has accomplished through him. That,
and that alone, is the Good News!
McGarvey commented that Stephen’s “...office of deacon had terminated by the
dispersion of the church which he had served, and now he becomes an evangelist...He
evidently became an evangelist, not by being formally set apart to this work, but by beginning
to evangelize under the force of circumstances.” We sense once again how McGarvey is
reading a great deal of his 19th century church organizational experience back into this biblical
text. Nothing is said in Acts concerning “office of deacon,” and certainly nothing concerning
“termination of offices” in local congregations served!
9The opening phrase of verse 6, προσεχον δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι, proseichon de hoi ochloi,
“Then the crowds paid close attention,” is given differently by the first writer of Bezae, the
Peshitta Syriac (see), and the Middle Egyptian version: hos de ekouon pan hoi ochloi
proseichon,
“then as all were hearing the crowds were paying close attention.” The singular pan is difficult
to construe here, and may be a mistake for pantes. See Metzger, p. 356. It is obvious that
the later copyists / translators felt themselves free to change the actual wording of the text, but
still wrote almost the same thing, without changing the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
10The majority of Greek texts use the definite article before Philipp, but the first writer of
Bezae, Psi, Minuscules 36, 453, 945, 1739, 1891, and a few other Greek manuscripts omit it.
343
with one mind,11 as they listened and saw the signs which he was doing.12 (7) For many13 of
those having unclean spirits, crying out with a great voice, were coming out;14 while many who
had been paralyzed and crippled were healed.15 (8) Then there came great joy in that city.16
Compare footnote 6. This is a very common variant in the Greek textual witnesses, and, we
think, reflects differing views of whether or not to use the article with nouns and names. It is
clear that the later copyists did not feel themselves bound to use the article exactly as it was
used in the manuscript being copied.
11This is the Greek adverb ὁμοθυμαδὸν, homothumadon, which Luke uses eleven times
in Acts (1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6 (here); 12:20; 15:25; 18:12, and 19:29), but then
occurs elsewhere in the Greek New Testament only at Romans 15:6. It means "with one
mind, or purpose, or impulse." Here again, we note that this word, which can be described as
a mark of Luke’s vocabulary, is not found in the Gospel of Luke, and could be used in an
argument against the common authorship of these two works.
12Compare similar language in Mark 16:17 (the “Longer Ending”).
13There are variants in the Greek manuscripts for the opening words of verse 7. P74,
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, E
(Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules 81, 1175, and a few other Greek manuscripts read polloi gar,
“For many...” Minuscule 33 (see), 614 (see), 945 (see), the first writer of 1739 and the
“Majority Text” read pollon, “many” (genitive absolute plural instead of nominative plural). The
first writer of Bezae reads apo pollois, “from among many,” apparently a mistake in grammar
(since apo normally takes the genitive, not the dative case). It is obvious that the later copyists
sought to use some form of the word for “many,” but were not bound by what they found
written in the manuscript being copied. In fact, Luke’s language is difficult to construe, and
ambiguous at best. As a result, copyists felt free to change that wording, and use the genitive
absolute in the place of the nominative, as well as omit the conjunction gar. The textual
situation here is confusing, but does not have much effect on the meaning of Luke’s narrative,
which is unclear. Metzger observes that “...The author begins with polloi as the subject and
pneumata akatharta as object of ton echonton, and then proceeds as though pneumata
were the subject of the main verb ekserchon (‘for many of those who had unclean spirits,
crying with a loud voice they came out’). In order to improve the syntax scribes altered the
[text]...” (P. 356) We consider this (verse 7) to be one of the most difficult verses to read in
the Book of Acts.
14The sentence as evidently written in the original manuscript of Acts does not make good
sense (as far as we can see), saying that those having unclean spirits “came out,” when the
obvious meaning should be that the unclean spirits came out of them. That is the reason for
the variant readings referred to in the preceding footnote, and for the change in number of the
imperfect verb ἐξήρχοντο, ekserchonto, “they were coming out,” from third plural to third
singular, eksercheto, “it was coming out.” There is probably a primitive error in the Greek text,
that could only be corrected by conjecture on the part of later copyists. See Metzger’s
discussion on pp. 356-57, where he concludes that “Irrespective of one’s view concerning the
hypothetical Aramaic original [proposed by C. C. Torrey], it is perhaps best to retain the
anacoluthon [inconsistent grammar] and to conclude, with Lake and Cadbury, that we have
here one of those tricks of mental telescoping to which all writers are liable, and that, as such,
it is one of several indications in the text that it was never finally revised.”
15Compare similar statements found at Luke 6:18 and Acts 5:16. Also see Mark 1:26-27
344
(9) Then a certain man by [the] name of Simon had earlier been17 practicing magic18 in
(and parallels); 5:7-13 (and parallels), and the story of the healing of a lame man in Luke 5:1726. Whereas the coming out of the unclean spirits is described with an imperfect verb,
meaning a process covering some time, the healing is described with an aorist (“punctiliar”)
verb, describing a one-time, (“instantaneous” ?) event.
It is no wonder that the crowds of people in Samaria "were paying close attention"
(proseichon, literally, "they were holding towards," meaning that they directed their attention
to the things being said, and held them closely in mind). The reason for this rapt attention is
that Philipp was not just announcing the Anointed King--he was doing the works of the
Anointed King, which became visible, convincing "signs" of his authority and the truth of his
Message. Marshall comments that "Philip had the same ability as the apostles to perform
miraculous signs which acted as a confirmation of his message...Philip's activity matches that
of Peter (3:1-10) and Jesus." (p. 154)
It is always the case--when notoriously evil people suddenly become clean, and
renounce their sinfulness; when new life and purity is evident where there was formerly filth
and disgusting uncleanness, people observing these events will sit up and take notice. When
sick people are ministered to, and undeniable healing takes place "in the name of Jesus,"
those observing are going to want to know about this Jesus, who, Philipp was proclaiming, is
none other than the Anointed King, the rightful King of all people. The church that confronts
the unclean spirits hurting people in society, acting decisively to cast out those spirits, and
seeking to bring healing of mind and body to suffering people, is a church that is going to
capture the attention of the people in that society. It has always been that way, and continues
to be so today. The church that is too mealy-mouthed to confront evil forces, and that causes
no cry of despair to go up from the unclean spirits, is a church that will not be heard-anywhere, anytime! The church that refuses to play an active role in healing the hurts of its
neighbors (for example, in some so-called “liberal” churches, where such a passage is easily
dismissed as “nonsense,” and any such idea as praying for the sick, or seeking divine healing,
is rejected as “primitive religion”), is a church that loses its right to speak with any kind of
authority!
16Note the process: evil is confronted, and cast out; sick people are healed and cared for;
the Message is heard and believed; and great joy fills the community. There is no more
blessed experience for any society than to experience the coming of the Good News in such
circumstances, with its new life and hope for those formerly without hope, living in despair!
Such a community is vibrant with hope and optimism!
17The verb προϋπρχεν, prouperchen, literally, “he was existing before” (imperfect) is
replaced by prouparchon, the present active participle, “he is existing before” by the Latin
translation of Irenaeus (probably; before 395 A.D.). The first verb places Simon’s magical
activities in the past; the present participle places his activities in the present, i.e., both before
and now.
18Haenchen correctly points out that in verse 9 Luke gives his readers a sort of "flashback," describing what had been going on in this Samaritan city before Phillip's coming. The
participle μαγεύων, mageuon means "practicing magic." The Greek noun mageia, formed
from this verb, means "the religion of the Magi," or "magic (literally, ‘magi-like’)," or "art," or
sometimes "quackery." In Greek literature, it has these four different meanings: (1) "member
of the Persian priestly caste," in which religion and philosophy were closely intertwined; (2)
345
more generally, "the possessor and user of supernatural knowledge and ability," who by
initiations and rituals is able to protect the dying against Hades; (3) "magician," who
accomplishes cleansing and forgiveness by the use of potions and secret languages; (4)
"deceiver," or "seducer," the kind of person who claims supernatural powers, but is obviously a
faker, a "quack." Throughout history, there has been a close relationship between "magic" and
"religion." Nowhere does this become more obvious than in the stories of Moses and Aaron,
over against the practitioners of magic in Pharaoh's court, as told in Exodus 7:8-13, 22; 8:7,
19. A very similar relationship is seen in the experience of Daniel in Nebuchadnezzar's court as told in Daniel. The same relationship is also seen when Jesus heals the sick
and casts out evil spirits, and points out that the Jews have their own healers and exorcists.
See Luke 11:19!
In the story of Exodus, we apparently see the picture of YHWH stooping to the use of
"magical tricks" to attempt to persuade Pharaoh. There can be no question that these are in
fact "magical tricks," because they are reduplicated almost exactly by the magicians of
Pharaoh (the staff that turns into a snake, the hand that has leprosy, and is suddenly
cleansed, the turning of water into blood). Is this the Bible's way of condoning the practice of
magic? Or is this the Bible's way of showing its readers the difference between true religion
and magical practices? Should we understand the story as picturing YHWH's enabling his
servants to act in terms of their environment, in a way that can be understood by devotees of
magic, where magical tricks were part and parcel of religious vocabulary, but then going far
beyond those magical tricks to show the nature of the real miraculous power of God at work in
human history? We think this is the case; and in so thinking, we are in agreement with a
number of students of Exodus today, as shown in the following quotations:
"...The genuine ambiguity of the situation emerges when one recognizes that it was
God's choice of a sign by which he sought to legitimate his messenger that was duplicated by
the magicians...By introducing this ambiguity right at the outset, the author makes it clear that
the witness of the plague stories does not lie just in a naive display of supernatural fireworks.
The issue at stake is on another dimension. How can Pharaoh be made to discern the hand of
God? The so-called 'supernatural' element was in itself not enough. The divine sign is made
to look like a cheap, juggler's trick which a whole row of Egyptian magicians can
duplicate with apparent ease." (Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 152)
"...The trick was a standard item in their professional repertoire. Egyptian scarabs,
those engraved ceramic or stone amulets or ornaments having the shape of a beetle, depict
the magician performing the feat of holding a snake that is as stiff as a rod. This trick is
reproduced in Egypt to this day by native snake charmers, and has often been described and
photographed. The secret has been revealed as depending on the particular species of
Egyptian cobra known as the naja haje. Its distinctive feature is that it can be rendered totally
immobile and absolutely rigid through the skilled application of great pressure to one of the
nerves at the nape of the neck. When it is thrown to the ground, the jolt causes it to recover
and the snake wiggles away." (Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus, pp. 67-68)
"The narrator goes to great trouble to make plain that Pharaoh had to call in the best he
had to match the wondrous deed of Moses and Aaron: 'wise scholars,' 'magicians,' 'learned
men,' with 'arcane arts.' Even then, however, Yahweh's men had the best and last and
triumphant word. In the delightfully funny verse 12, when 'everybody' throws down his staff
346
and Pharaoh's palace is about to be overrun with monstrous snakes, we are told that 'Aaron's
staff' (not, significantly, 'Aaron's monstrous snake') 'gobbled up' or 'gulped down' everybody's
else's staff. Pharaoh and his best minds are by no means presented as inept or lacking in
power. Quite the contrary, they are formidable, a force to be reckoned with. But when they
come up against Yahweh, they are outdone..." (Durham, Exodus, pp. 91-92)
There can be no doubt that what the Egyptian magicians were doing was simply a
magical trick with a snake. What Aaron was doing was much greater, pointing beyond itself to
the wonder-working power of YHWH God. Yes, the Egyptian magicians could perform some
impressive tricks. But Moses and Aaron were servants of a God far more powerful than those
magicians ever imagined possible. Their power was a gift of YHWH God, a genuinely
miraculous higher power, something far superior to what power the magicians of Egypt
possessed--even though at first sight it seemed to be identical to those magical tricks of the
Egyptians.
McGarvey pointed out that “The practice of magical arts was quite common among the
Jews and the Samaritans of that age, and the masses of the people of all nations were very
superstitious in reference to them. At this particular time the people of Samaria were
completely under the influence of a famous magician, and this obstacle had to be overcome
before Philip could hope for success.” (p. 138) What do you think? What is the difference
between genuine religion and superstitious magic? Have you ever known someone whose
religion was little more than an attempt to practice magic? How is it that there were many
Greek and Jewish "healers" and "exorcists" in the first century--who seemed to be able to
duplicate the healings and exorcisms of Jesus? Those who have watched a Harry Houdini, or
a David Copperfield, or an Andre Kole, can testify that you have to be very stubborn not to
believe in "magic," in the reality of their admitted "tricks."
Andre Kole, who has become a confessing Christian, has written an interesting little
book entitled Miracles or Magic?, in which he explains how practicing magicians all around
the world, including religious "faith-healers," are able to perform all sorts of sleight-of-hand
tricks that mystify observers, and are used as a basis for claiming divine authority. Kole holds
that all of these phenomena can be explained simply as very astute "tricks," which, because of
their secret being unknown to the observers, have a powerful ability to convince. But at the
same time, Kole holds that the miracles of Jesus are the "real thing"--anything but "tricks,"
incapable of being reduplicated by any "magician," especially when it comes to rising from the
grave! Cole points out that there are few people who can avoid being deceived by a skilled
"magician." We see things which we simply cannot explain on any natural basis that we know
of, and we easily draw the conclusion that we are in the presence of the "divine"--when in fact,
we are simply being deceived and used by tricksters, usually for purposes of financial gain.
The biblical story warns us of this very real possibility. See, for example, the specific
reference to this story of the magicians in Pharaoh’s court found in 2 Timothy 3:1-9, and the
warning of Jesus concerning the coming of "false anointed ones," accompanied by miracles
(Mark 13:22).
No, this matter of Pharaoh and the magicians is not by any means just an antiquated
story of the past--but the fact of history is that it is a very present, real danger for all people, in
all times! We constantly have to judge between the religious huckster of magical tricks, and
347
the city, and had been astonishing the people of Samaria,19 claiming himself to be some great
the genuine servants of God, who are being used by God for our salvation! And that is exactly
what this story in Acts 8 is telling its readers, the first century Jews and especially the
Romans, whose Empire was filled with all sorts of religions combined with magical practices of
all sorts, a world in which such a man as Simon of Samaria would be a well known figure,
prominent in almost every province and city in the east and in the west! And Luke, writing his
“reasoned defense” of the Christian movement and its leaders, goes to great pains to point out
the difference between genuine religion and magical superstition!
People have always been fascinated by, and attracted to claims of the "supernatural," to
the peddlers of miracles and instantaneous healings, and have been easily led astray by that
fascination, just as the Samaritans had been fascinated by Simon. The magicians of Pharaoh
were able to repeat Aaron's "snake and staff" act, the "hand turning leprous" act, and the
"water into blood" act, as well as the multiplication of frogs. But, the biblical story tells its
readers, those magical abilities soon reached their limit, and the magicians themselves had to
confess that the divine acts accompanying Moses and Aaron were truly the "finger of God"
(compare Luke 11:20). There is a great gulf between the foretellings of the spiritualists, and
the magic tricks of the magicians and faith-healers, when it comes to the mighty acts of God in
history! There is a world of difference between the real "Anointed King" and the "selfanointed, self-appointed” religious hucksters who come to an unsuspecting public with their
miracles and tricks, to get all that they can get from them! But in comparison with the "real
thing," all their claims are reduced to impotence--and they have to bow in awe before "the
finger of God"! Such is the case in any comparison of the self-styled "faith-healers" and their
miracles, when compared with the miracles of Jesus especially within the context of his life
and teaching--which quickly reduce all the others to impotence! For what we believe is an
excellent treatment of this subject, see the movie, Leap of Faith, with Steve Martin, which
makes this same point very explicitly.
Yes, the Book of Exodus takes seriously the existence of other religions, and the
reality of magicians who claim divine powers, and who can duplicate some of the miraculous
powers which YHWH God gives to his people as "signs" of his presence. But their claims
cannot stand the test of time, and people must always be on guard against "miraclemongering," against following signs and wonders, regardless of their source. There is such a
thing as "true religion" over against "false religion." There are miracles and signs that are
misleading and false. But the existence of the counterfeit does not argue against the reality of
the genuine article! YHWH God is--and his mighty acts are seen in history, as he delivers the
suffering slave-peoples of the earth into freedom, and as he gives his powerful teaching to his
followers, enabling them to be truly free, especially through the Good News of the Kingdom of
God and its Anointed King Jesus! It is this same theme that we meet here in the eighth
chapter of Acts--and if we have done our homework in the Book of Exodus, or in Daniel, we
are well prepared to face and understand the teaching of this chapter!
19There are variant readings for the participle ἐξιστάνων, eksistanon, “astonishing,” which
is read by P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Minuscules
81, 1175, and a few other Greek manuscripts. The first writer of Bezae (probably) wrote
eksestane, from the verb eksistao, an unknown verb except for its appearance here in
Bezae. The first corrector of Bezae, E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, and the
“Majority Text” changed this verb to the participle eksiston, “being astonished.” Here again
348
one.20 (10) All, from small to great were paying close attention,21 saying, "This person is the
power of God, which is called22 'Great'!"23 (11) Then they were paying close attention24 to him
we witness the freedom of later copyists to “play” with individual words in the original text,
replacing them with synonyms, giving a slightly different sense to the story--but not changing
the meaning of Luke’s narrative. In some ways what they have done reminds us of Hebrew
readers of an unpointed text, as they suggest various ways the words may be pointed and
understood--but still holding firmly to the traditional text.
The Gospels picture the people again and again being "astonished" at the miraculous
works done by Jesus, and the same verb as used here in the story of Simon the Magician is
used in their descriptions of what happened when people witnessed the deeds of Jesus. See,
for example, such passages as: Matthew 12:23; Mark 2:12; 5:42; 6:51; Luke 2:47; 8:56;
24:22, and also see Acts 2:7, 12; here, 8:9, 11, 13; 9:21; 10:45, and 12:16. There was more
than they were able to explain, or understand in the words and deeds of Jesus, and in the
words and deeds of his Ambassadors as well. But this was not only true of them--it was also
true of the magical tricks of Simon!
20Simon's claim concerning himself is very vague and indefinite according to Luke's
description--he claimed to be "some great one" (compare verse 10). We automatically think of
the self-given names and titles of self-styled "prophets," "wonder-workers," and “great ones”
throughout history--such as "Father Divine" of Philadelphia, or "Yahweh Ben Yahweh" of the
City of Miami. Compare Matthew 5:19 and 20:26 (Mark 10:43; Luke 9:48); Luke 1:15, 32;
7:16; 19:28, 34, 35; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 4:14; 10:21; 13:20; Revelation 11:18; 12:3, 9;
14:8, 19; 16:19; 17:1, 5, 18; 18:2, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 19:2. Especially see the earlier
reference to self-styled religiously important people in Acts 5:36, with its footnote 163 where
the variant reading megan, “great,” is discussed). It is clear that only God and his genuine
messengers and servants can be truly called "great." But it is also clear that there are selfstyled "great ones," who take divine honors to themselves, much as Simon "the great" was
attempting to do for himself. So it is in the Book of Revelation, with the "great" prostitute, the
"great" City of Rome, and the "great" dragon of its visions! They claim "greatness" for
themselves, but they are condemned and judged by the truly "Great" God!
21Luke uses the same Greek verb, προσεχον, proseichon, for their paying close
attention to Simon, that he has just used for their paying close attention to Phillip--compare
verse 6 with its footnote 9. The problem is that we human beings are very much like sheep.
We will listen to and follow the voice of almost anyone who can get our attention! This raises
the difficult problem of knowing how to distinguish truth from error, the genuine from what is
counterfeit, the will of the true and living God from the designs of self-serving human beings
who claim divine sanction. It was no more a problem in the ancient world of the first century
than it is today, and this story in Acts calls us to face this problem head-on.
22The participle ἡ καλουμένη, he kaloumene, “the one being called,” is read by P74,
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, E (Laudianus),
Minuscules 33, 81, 323, 945, 1175, 1739, some other Greek manuscripts, and the Latin
translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.) In its place the participle legomene, “being spoken,”
is read by Minuscule 614 and a few other Greek manuscripts, while Psi, the “Majority Text,”
the Peshitta Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic, and the Middle Egyptian version omit the participle
completely. Here again we see the later copyists and translators at work with an “awkward”
text. They feel the freedom to substitute a synonym, or even omit the difficult word, in their
349
for some time,25 being astonished by his magic tricks.26 (12) Then when they believed in
Phillip,27 announcing as Good News [the things] concerning the Kingdom of God28 and the
effort to make the text readable, but still not changing the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
Metzger mentions Klostermann’s conjecture that in the phrase ἡ καλουμένη Μεγάλη, he
kaloumene Megale, “the one being called ‘Great,’” “Megale was a transliteration of the
Samaritan megal) or megaliy, meaning ‘he who reveals, the revealer,’ in which case
kaloumene apologizes for the foreign term (compare 1:12; 3:2, 11; 6:9).” (P. 358)
23Compare footnote 20. From reading the New Testament, it would seem that Simon the
Magician appears only here in this passage, and then vanishes from view. But such is not the
case. Instead, Simon evidently succeeded in obtaining a large number of followers who saw in
him and his consort, Helen, divine figures worthy of worship. His heresy (or, false teaching)
was combated by the early Christian apologists, who sought to defend the Christian faith from
destructive errors that were undermining the faith (such apologists as Justin, Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, and others). A number of writings were circulated in the early
centuries, describing his life and career, and Simon was later to appear as a major figure in
Goethe's Faust. See the additional note XIII by Robert Casey in The Acts of the Apostles V,
pp. 151-63. Simon became known as the "father of Gnosticism," a religious movement that
deeply affected the Christian faith in the second and third centuries.
24Compare footnotes 9 and 21. Again we emphasize how easy it is for people--even highly
educated modern people, to become enchanted with religious pretenders, and to follow them
faithfully. Many of the "New Age" religious leaders, with procedures for enabling divine
communication, and with such books as Urantia, receive great, sacrificial devotion and
attention--but their teachings are no more solidly founded than were those of this Simon of
Samaria as depicted in later centuries.
25For this phrase, ἱκαν χρόνῳ, hikano chrono, “in some (or, enough) time,” compare
Acts 14:3.
26Compare the lengthy discussion concerning magic in footnote 18. It is easy for us,
reading this story "at arm's length," to think that we ourselves would never be caught up in
such a preposterous allegiance. But the story of Joseph Smith and his "golden plates," with a
growing religious movement that is now world-wide, shows how wrong we are in this. It is very
easy to get caught up in a religious movement that shows "signs and wonders," and be swept
away with the current! Many Jews believe that this same thing is exactly what happened to
those who got caught up in the Christian faith, with its "signs and wonders," and with the
forsaking of the religion of their ancestors to follow in the pathway of Jesus of Nazareth. It is
just at this point that we have to insist that Jesus and his teachings have been able to
withstand the most severe scrutiny and testing, over the centuries, while the self-anointed, selfappointed religious quacks cannot endure such testing. Jesus of Nazareth and his way are the
fulfillment of all that is deepest and best in the Jewish Bible--while ritualistic Judaism and the
many "New Age" religions have in fact forsaken that precious heritage! So we who follow
Jesus believe, for very good and valid reasons!
27Luke says plainly that the Samaritans "placed confidence in Philipp," or "believed in
Philipp." The fact is that until people place confidence in the messenger, they are going to
have a very hard time placing confidence in the Message! Of course, their confidence would
shift from Philipp the messenger of the Good News, to Anointed King Jesus, the central figure
of the Good News, as Philipp pointed beyond himself to the risen Lord he was proclaiming.
28The "Kingdom of God" is, of course, one of the central concerns of the entire Bible--both
350
name of Jesus, Anointed King,29 both men and women were being immersed.30 (13) Then
in the Jewish Bible, and in the documents of the New Testament. Luke depicts the
importance of "The Kingdom of God" for the ministry of Jesus: "It is necessary for me (Jesus)
to announce the Kingdom of God as Good News, because for this purpose I was sent
authoritatively!" (Luke 4:43; compare 8:1; 9:2, 11, 27, 60; 16:16). In Acts, Luke pictures the
announcement or proclamation of the Kingdom of God as Good News in the following
passages: 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, and 31. Biblical theologies that do not largely center in
Jesus as "Anointed King," and in the Good News of "The Kingdom of God," can hardly claim to
be truly biblical! We insist that what Luke means is that Phillip was proclaiming Anointed King
Jesus, and telling his hearers that to follow this King was to enter into the Kingdom of God,
here and now, and to share in its eternal hope for the future. See footnote 18 on Acts 1:3.
29That Jesus has come to be God's chosen "King" for all humanity, a King who can save
from misdirection and missing-of-the-mark, create new life in his followers, and bring them to
eternal life, is central in the "evangelism" of the New Testament. The Good News of the early
church is that the Kingdom of God has broken into history in the person of its rightful King,
Jesus, who is risen from the dead, and who in his mysterious, transcendent reign, is ruling
over all who will place their faith in him. The question we must raise is, do we truly believe this
Message? Is it the Message we are announcing and proclaiming to our modern world? Why
not? On what basis do we have the right to change that Message?
30Compare Matthew 28:19. McGarvey commented that “The fact that the people without
hesitation gave up their faith in Simon as the great power of God, and implicitly believed in
what Philip did and taught can be accounted for only on the ground that there was such a
difference between the tricks of sorcery and the miracles, that the people, even though
completely deluded by the former, could plainly see, when once the two were placed side by
side, that the latter were divine, and the former human. The tricks of sorcery were, and they
are still, as inexplicable to the beholder as miracles; but the former are mere tricks, serving no
purpose except to excite idle curiosity...” (p. 140)
The immersion of the Samaritan men and women who believed, or placed confidence in
Philipp and his Message was an "acted symbol" of their acceptance of his Message, and of
their identification with Anointed King Jesus. This "rite of passage," or "initiatory ritual,"
signified that they were leaving their former allegiances, and committing themselves wholeheartedly to Jesus as King, thereby entering into the Kingdom of God--over against their
former allegiance to the petty kingdoms of human beings such as Simon. Luke makes it very
explicit that women were included as responsible converts, right alongside men!
Immersion, of course, plays a central role in nine of the stories of conversion told in the
Book of Acts--see 2:38, 41; 8:12 (here), 13; 8:36, 38; 9:18 (22:16; immersion is not
mentioned in the story of Saul's conversion told in chapter 26); 10:47-48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; and
19:5. But it is overstatement to say that immersion is mentioned in every case of conversion in
the Book of Acts--for it is not mentioned in 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 9:31; 9:35; 9:42;
11:21, 24; 12: 24; 13:12; 13:48; 14:1; 14:21, 23; 16:5; 17:4; 17:34; 19:18, 20; and 28:24--all
of which are records of people being converted to Jesus as Lord.
What we should conclude is that while immersion plays a prominent role in a large
number of individual stories of conversion, especially those that go into great detail, in many of
the stories of conversion, especially those that do not go into detail, immersion is not
351
Simon himself also believed, and having been immersed, he was holding closely to Phillip; and
observing both signs and great acts of power being done, he was astonished.31
(14) Then the Ambassadors in Jerusalem,32 having heard33 that Samaria34 has
mentioned at all. This is exactly what we would expect from a document that is not intended
as setting forth a legalistic "pattern-book for religious rituals," but rather is intended as an
apologetic history which has important meaning for both Jewish and Roman leaders in the first
century, with regards to their attitude toward the Christian movement, its leaders and
adherents! Luke wants those intended readers to know that the Christian movement reaches
to the “grass roots” of society--even to the most backward and despised peoples of first
century society, all across the Roman Empire--bringing them Good News and restoring vibrant
power and hope to their lives--fighting against enslavement to magic and superstition, and
freeing all sorts and classes of people to be genuinely loving, giving, and rightly-related, as
they embody the kind of loving ministry to which their great Lord and King had given his life!
This new religion does not teach its converts to be revolutionaries against the government
under which they live, but rather teaches them to live in newness of life--in giving, and serving,
and uniting with all other people, of every race and class in their society!
31McGarvey commented that Simon’s “...amazement is proof that he saw as the people did,
the distinction between miracles and his own tricks of jugglery...It was undoubtedly this which
caused him to believe; and to avoid the confusion into which many have fallen in regard to his
faith, it should be observed that the words,’Simon also himself believed,’ are written not from
Philip’s point of view, but from Luke’s. Philip might have been deceived by a pretended faith;
but Luke, writing long after the transaction, and with all the knowledge of Simon’s later career
that we have, says that he believed, and this should preclude all doubt as to the reality of his
faith.” (pp. 140-41)
What do you think? Was this in fact a genuine "conversion"? The same words that are
used of the Samaritan men and women in verse twelve are used of Simon in verse thirteen.
The additional statement is made that he was "holding closely" to Philipp. This verb
proskartereo, is found elsewhere in Acts at 1:14; 2:42, 46; 6:4, and 10:7. We take it that
Luke pictures Simon's conversion as just as genuine as that of the others--he believed the
Message that Philipp had preached concerning Jesus as King, and the Kingdom of God, and
signified his acceptance of Jesus as King by his immersion. He was deeply attracted to Philipp
and formed a close attachment to him. But with his background in "magic," his special interest
lay in observing the "signs" and "great works of power" being done by Philipp. They
astonished him, just as his own magical tricks had astonished the Samaritans earlier (see
verse 11). Simon had become a convert to the Christian faith, but he had not severed his ties
with his past fascination for, and involvement in, magical acts of power--and so, it seems it was
the miraculous deeds being done by Philipp that attracted this magician's close attention!
32Bezae changes the spelling of Jerusalem from Hierosolumois to Ierousalem (the form
found most often in the LXX). The first form is in the dative plural, a Hellenistic form,
conforming to the Greek hieros in its spelling, and treating the name as formed from ta
Hierosoluma; the second form given by Bezae is the Semitic form, which is undeclinable.
Here Luke
appears to be more “Hellenistic” than his later copyist! The variant reading does not change
the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
352
received the Word of God,35 authoritatively sent to them Peter and John.36 (15) These men,
having come down, prayed on their behalf, that they might receive [the] Set-apart Spirit.37 (16)
Acts 11:1 and 22, in which the “listening” of the church leaders in Jerusalem
and Judea for what was happening in the Christian mission is underscored again.
34Instead of the reading ἡ Σαμάρεια, he Samareia, “the Samaria,” found in the
overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts, Minuscule 614 and a few other Greek
manuscripts omit the article. As we have already seen in a number of variants, and as we will
see again throughout the textual history of the Greek New Testament, this is a common
variant, reflecting changes in Greek grammar regarding the use of non-use of the article with
names and nouns.
35For this phrase, δέδεκται ἡ Σαμάρεια τὸν λόγον το θεο, dedektai he Samareia ton
logon tou theou, “the Samaria had received the Word of the God,” compare Acts 17:11; 1
Thessalonians 1:6; 2:13; and Jacob (“James”) 1:21. The verb dedektai is the perfect
indicative of dechomai, “to receive.” While the Word of God comes freely as a gift, there is the
human responsibility for “receiving” that Word, or else it will be of no avail!
33Compare
There can be no doubt as to what Luke means by "the Word of God." It is the Good
News of Jesus as Anointed King, and the things concerning the Kingdom of God that were at
the heart of Philipp's Message. According to Luke, when people hear that Message, they have
heard "The Word of God"! And when they respond to it in a positive way, placing their
confidence in the Message, and being immersed as a sign of their acceptance of the
Message, they have "received the Word of God." We who are ministers in the modern church
need to ask ourselves, "When people have heard our message, have they in fact heard the
Word of God?" Or, have we, in fact, simply spoken the message of our own hearts and
minds?
36The Ambassadors, who were still in Jerusalem, were not at all opposed to, or discouraged
by, the news of the Samaritans having received the Word of God. Instead, they immediately
sent two of their most important leaders to visit, and to help in any way possible to confirm and
strengthen these new disciples--especially to pray fervently on their behalf, as is seen in the
next verse (and compare Acts 11:22). Some commentators insist that these Ambassadors
were going down to Samaria to "inspect" what was happening, and to determine whether or
not it was genuine--much in the same way that delegates from Jerusalem went to check up on
Jesus in his ministry in Galilee. But this is being read into the text, and it can certainly be
understood in a much more positive manner, just as it must be in the case of Barnabas' going
to Antioch in 11:22!
37We immediately ask, "What was wrong with the Samaritans, that they had not yet
received the Spirit of God?" Our answer is that God purposely withheld the gift of the Spirit
until the coming of the Ambassadors from Jerusalem, in order to affirm to the entire Church
that the Samaritans were indeed welcome members of the Church of the risen Lord Jesus--not
some outsiders, surreptitiously brought in by Philipp apart from the main leadership of the
Church!
It is helpful to consider all of the statements concerning the coming of the Spirit in the
Book of Acts: In Acts 2:4 and 33 we have read about the coming of the Spirit upon the
Ambassadors (and we believe the others of the 120 disciples) themselves, something that
happened suddenly and unexpectedly, filling them apart from any ritual of immersion, or any
353
laying on of hands. It was the miraculous fulfillment of the promise Jesus had made to them
as recorded in Acts 1:5 and 8. Following Peter's preaching of that first great sermon on the
Day of Pentecost, according to Acts 2:38, Peter had given the promise that the "gift of the
Set-apart Spirit" would be given to all who turned their lives around and were immersed into
(or, calling upon) the name of Jesus. Nothing is said in that passage, or subsequent to it,
concerning the laying on of hands by the Ambassadors, or any sudden, miraculous gift. In
Acts 4:31 we have read that following the attempt by the Jewish authorities to stop the early
Church from preaching, the followers of Jesus, gathered together in prayer, "were all filled with
the Set-apart Spirit," which gave them boldness to speak the Word of God. There again,
nothing is said of any immersion, or any laying on of hands.
In Acts 6:3 (see verses 5, 10; 7:55; 8:29 and 39) the seven men selected to "wait on
tables" were described as men who were "full of the Spirit and wisdom"--but there is nothing
said concerning how this filling had happened to them, whether as a result of their being
immersed (as in Acts 2:38), or through the laying on of the hands of the Ambassadors of
Jesus. In Acts 9:17-18 Luke tells the story of the conversion of Saul, detailing how a disciple
by the name of Ananias, who lived in Damascus, was sent by the risen Lord Jesus to lay his
hands on Saul. Ananias had told Saul that Jesus was restoring his sight, and filling him with
Set-apart Spirit. Immediately Saul had regained his sight, and was immersed. Here, we note,
it was not the laying on of hands by the Ambassadors from Jerusalem, but by an ordinary
disciple from Damascus--and we also note that the coming of the healing Spirit into Saul's life
preceded his immersion. Compare the later statement in Acts 13:9 that Saul (whose name is
being changed to Paul) was "filled with Set-apart Spirit."
In Acts 9:31 Luke states that the entire Church in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria "was
being filled with the encouragement of the Set-apart Spirit." This passage keeps the reader
from assuming that only certain special Christians were filled with the Spirit--rather, it is
something experienced by the entire Church, and it was a continuing experience--not
something that had happened once for all. Again we note that there is no mention of any
immersion or laying on of hands. Later, in Acts 10:44 we are told that as Peter was speaking
about Anointed King Jesus to the non-Jewish, Roman soldier Cornelius and his household, the
Set-apart Spirit "fell upon all those hearing the Word," in such a way as to astonish the Jewish
observers, that the "gift of the Set-apart Spirit" had been poured out upon non-Jewish people
in this manner. Luke tells how the Spirit enabled those non-Jewish people to speak in other
languages in a similar manner to what had happened to the Ambassadors on the Day of
Pentecost. It was only after this unusual experience that Peter called for their immersion,
stating that no one could forbid their being immersed, since they had "received the Set-apart
Spirit just like we have" (verses 45, 47; compare 11:15 and 15:8). There is no mention of the
laying on of hands by the Ambassadors, and Luke makes it very clear that their reception of
the Spirit came prior to their immersion, not subsequent to it, as in Acts 2:38.
In Acts 11:24 we are told concerning Barnabas that he was a good man, and "full of the
Set-apart Spirit and faith." Nothing is said concerning when or how this had happened. In
Acts 13 Luke gives us the lengthy sermon of Paul at Antioch of Pisidia in Asia Minor, and tells
of the opposition that arose against the Christian missionaries, causing them to have to leave
Antioch and move on to Iconium. But before leaving the story of what happened at Antioch,
Luke tells the reader in verse 52 that "The disciples were filled with joy and Set-apart Spirit."
There is no mention of any of the Ambassadors coming from Jerusalem to lay hands on them,
354
indeed no mention at all of how they had been filled with the Spirit. All that Luke tells us is that
they had confidence, or "believed." This being filled with the Spirit is obviously the natural
thing to be expected of all believers--not just something unusual, or something associated with
a special ritual.
Then in Acts 19 Luke tells the story of Paul's coming to Ephesus, where he asked
certain disciples (twelve in number) whether or not they had received the Set-apart Spirit when
they believed. They responded that they hadn't been taught anything concerning the Spirit,
and Paul discovered that they had been immersed with the kind of immersion practiced by
John the Immerser, a ritual of penitent preparation for the coming of the Anointed King. Paul
explained how the Anointed King, Jesus, had already come. As a result of his preaching,
those disciples were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus--and subsequent to their
immersion, Paul laid his hands on them. At that time, the Spirit "came upon them," enabling
them to speak in other languages and speak for God--in similar fashion to that of the
Ambassadors on the Day of Pentecost, and the experience of Cornelius and his household as
described in Acts 10.
What conclusions can be drawn from this brief survey of the passages in Acts that
speak of the coming or filling of the Set-apart Spirit? We suggest the following:
(1) The coming of the Spirit of God to live in the lives and hearts of the entire Church
was a promise made by Jesus, and that promise has been fulfilled in a wondrous way,
according to Luke's story in the Book of Acts. We may conclude that according to Luke, the
Spirit of God is for every disciple--it is the very presence of God, dwelling among his people!
The Church of Anointed King Jesus is the "Temple of the Set-apart Spirit," the dwelling-place
of God among his people!
(2) The way the Spirit comes, or "fills" the people of God, cannot be neatly "packaged,"
or set forth in an exact "one, two, three procedure." Rather, the Spirit sometimes comes
simply in answer to prayer, without any ritual of immersion, or any laying on of hands. On
other occasions, it comes as a gift following faith, or following repentance, and immersion--but
these "steps" are not uniformly mentioned, and it cannot be assumed that there is one definite
order intended.
(3) Sometimes the Spirit comes as a result of the laying on of hands of the
Ambassadors of Jesus, such as Peter and John here in Acts 8, but elsewhere as a result of
the laying on of hands of just an ordinary, fearful disciple by the name of Ananias in
Damascus (or Paul in Ephesus).
(4) Sometimes that filling with the Spirit results in unusual miraculous gifts such as
speaking in foreign languages, and becoming spokespersons for God--but at other times, no
such special gifts are mentioned, and it simply results in boldness in witnessing, or
accompanies joy.
(5) It seems that the Set-apart Spirit is most evident when great new steps in
proclamation of the Good News are being taken, and previously imposing barriers are being
crossed over--for example, when the Good News was first being announced in Jerusalem, or
355
For it had not yet fallen upon any38 of them--but they had only been immersed into the name of
the Lord Jesus.39 (17) Then they placed40 their hands upon them,41 and they received [the]
Set-apart Spirit.42
when the Good News was being taken to non-Jews (such as in Acts 10 when the Good News
was brought to the Roman Cornelius), or when the Good News was entering into new and
important centers of missionary activity. We can assume that this same thing is true here in
Acts 8, as the "half-breed" Samaritans, so despised and belittled by Orthodox Judaism in the
first century, are coming into the faith from their background in half-Jewish, half-pagan magical
religion. The laying on of hands by the Ambassadors from Jerusalem proclaims the entire
Church's acceptance of these people, and the coming of the Spirit is the divine confirmation of
their acceptance! Again we say, we meet the Spirit at the “boundaries”!
38The phrase ἐπ̓ οὐδενὶ, ep’ oudeni, “upon no one” (the dative singular, masculine), was
changed by the first writer of Bezae to epi oudena, “upon none” (the accusative singular
masculine), but was later corrected to conform to the reading of the other Greek manuscripts.
The variant demonstrates the freedom of the copyist to adjust or change the wording of the
original text, but not the freedom to change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
39Instead of the phrase κυρίου ̓Ιησο, kuriou Iesou, “of Lord Jesus,” Bezae and the
Middle Egyptian version read kuriou Iesou Christou, “of Lord Jesus, Anointed King,” while L
(020) and a few other Greek manuscripts read Christou Iesou, “of Anointed King Jesus.”
This is the kind of variant readings that we have come to expect when the name of Jesus is
mentioned in Luke’s narrative, with differing word order, and differing titles being attributed to
Jesus. This is the freedom felt by the copyists, but not the freedom to change the meaning of
Luke’s narrative.
For this matter of being immersed “into the name of Anointed King Jesus,” see Acts
2:38 with its footnote 166.
40Instead of the aorist verb ἐπετίθεσαν, epetithesan, “they placed,” read by P74,
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (see), a corrector of Bezae, Minuscules
323, 945, 1175, 1739, and some other Greek manuscripts, the imperfect verb etithoun, “they
were placing,” is read by P45, the first writer of Bezae, E (Laudianus), Psi, the “Majority Text,”
and Irenaeus (2nd century A.D.). Compare the comments on the variant in footnote 39. The
variant makes no real difference for Luke’s narrative, but demonstrates the freedom of copyists
to substitute the tense of verbs in the text.
41Compare Acts 6:6.
42Legalistic interpreters of the Book of Acts are tempted to turn this story into a legal guide,
an authoritative set of "by-laws" for the reception of the Set-apart Spirit--insisting that without
the laying on of authoritative hands there can be no filling with the Spirit. McGarvey, for
example, stated that this story “...Affords strong evidence that the miraculous gift of the Holy
Spirit was bestowed through no human hands but those of the apostles” (p. 142). But we
insist that our text is a "historical apologetic" for the Christian movement, not a "book of canon
law" for church order, or the “plan of salvation,” or a detailed guide for reception of the Spirit,
as Hort insisted long ago. There is no consistent "pattern" for reception of the Spirit given in
Acts, nor is there any attempt to legislate concerning its various gifts--rather, the reception of
the Spirit is pictured as a personal matter, coming at different times, and in different ways, and
imparting different abilities and gifts (see footnote 37).
356
(18) Then Simon,43 having seen that through the placing of the hands of the Ambassa-
To try and legislate the coming of the Spirit is like attempting to tell the wind how and
where to blow! The Spirit may well not come as a result of immersion, and may come after the
laying on of authoritative hands--but that doesn't mean that this is the only, or the prescribed
way of the Spirit's coming! The fact is that the various statements given in Acts concerning
the coming of the Spirit, and the laying on of hands, simply cannot be compiled into a pattern
of legalistic rules governing either the coming of the Spirit, or the way in which, or by whom,
the "laying on of hands" should be done, or the kind of gifts that will be imparted! We, just like
people in every age, must not try to legislate concerning these matters, but must be open to
the presence of the Spirit, when and where it acts.
McGarvey attempted to give an overall view of the coming of the Spirit, in the following
words, apparently based on this story in Acts 8: “The young church in Samaria had hitherto
been guided by the teaching of Philip, and more recently by that of Peter and John; but these
men must, in executing their high commission, soon depart to other fields of labor; and if, in
doing so, they had left the church in the condition in which Peter and John found it, it would
have been without means of increasing its knowledge of the new institution, and with none but
the uncertain memories of the members of retaining with accuracy what it had already learned.
To supply this defect, primarily, and secondarily to leave with the church the means of
convincing unbelievers, the gift of inspiration was bestowed...These gifts served a temporary
purpose, until the facts, doctrine, commandments and promises of the new covenant were
committed to writing by inspired men, when the prophecies, tongues, and miraculous
knowledge of individual teachers gave place to the written word.” (pp. 144-45)
Thus, McGarvey held, the “miraculous” presence of the Spirit was limited to those early
times before the written New Testament, and after that time, was withdrawn. But where, we
ask, is there any such idea contained in this text (or anywhere else)? Is this not a doctrinaire
view of the Spirit’s work, and of the writing of the New Testament? We wonder how the last
half of this chapter, in picturing the Ethiopian Eunuch as going on his way rejoicing, without
any supernatural gifts, and no written New Testament, was expected to find his way as a
Christian, or be able to convince unbelievers in Ethiopia. And we also wonder how such a
doctrinaire view can account for the many testimonies throughout Christian history, and
especially in our modern times, of the coming of miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Our conclusion
is that it is simply not possible to draw up a legal code detailing the operation of the Spirit of
God; we cannot legislate concerning the Spirit and its gifts, on the basis of the Book of Acts.
Rather, it seems apparent that the promise of the Spirit to every believer is true to Christian
experience in history--and that the presence of the Spirit among believers is enough to assure
that they will have a future--whether without or (especially) with the written documents of the
New Testament! Indeed, it was the presence of the Spirit in the life of the Christian movement
that enabled the writing of our canonical “New Testament,” and it is that same Spirit that
continues to give guidance and comfort to later generations as we too experience its reality-especially as we too are given the divine guidance and courage to cross over new frontiers in
obedience to the commission of our risen Lord! It is just there, we believe, in fulfillment of the
divine commission to go to the ends of the earth, that we will experience the reality of the Spirit
and its gifts!
43The definite article with Simon, ὁ Σίμων, ho Simon, is omitted by Psi, Minuscule 614,
357
dors upon [people] the Spirit44 is being given, brought money to them (19) saying,45 "Give me
also this authority, so that on whomever I may place46 my hands, he may receive [the] Setapart Spirit!"47
(20) Then Peter said to him, "Your money, together with you, let it be for destruction!48
and a few other Greek manuscripts. This is a continually recurring variant, which is rooted in
the change in Greek writing that occurred across the centuries, with regards to whether or not
to use the article with nouns and names. The variant does not change the meaning of Luke’s
narrative.
44As would be expected, instead of the reading τὸ πνεμα, to pneuma, “the Spirit,” found
in Sinaiticus, a corrector of Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, the Sahidic Coptic and the Middle
Egyptian version, the phrase to pneuma to hagion, “the Spirit, the Set-apart one,” is read by
P45, P74, the first writer of Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, E (Laudianus), Psi,
Minuscules 33, 1739, the “Majority Text,” the entire Latin tradition, plus the Syriac and
Bohairic Coptic traditions. Even though this is a great majority of the manuscript evidence, it
seems most probable that the words are interpolated into an original text that did not have
them. As we have seen on many different occasions, it is the tendency of later copyists and
translators to add to the earlier text, especially in places such as this, where Jesus or the Spirit
are mentioned. Compare footnote 39.
45Instead of the participle λέγων, legon, “saying,” Bezae the Old Latin Manuscripts gig and
p, plus the Middle Egyptian version interpolate the phrase parakalon kai, “urging and...” This
variant demonstrates the freedom of the copyists / translators to enhance and change the
exact wording of the original manuscript, yet without changing the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
46Bezae and the Old Latin Manuscript p (see) interpolate kago, “I also.” This is another
attempt at “enhancement” of the original text by a later copyist and translator, in such a way
that it does not at all change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
47Simon, with his background in magic, thinks that he has "discovered the trick" for
impartation of the Spirit. He has been closely watching, observing every move of Philipp and
then of Peter and John. Now he knows! And so he comes to the Ambassadors, offering to
pay them for their knowledge, and for enabling him to perform this same trick of imparting the
Spirit to others! McGarvey stated that “As a sorcerer, it had been his business to increase his
stock in trade by purchasing from other sorcerers the secret of tricks which he could not
himself perform, and watching for opportunities to make such purchases.” (p. 146)
48McGarvey commented that “Nothing could be more abhorrent to an apostle than such a
proposal [as that of Simon]. It aroused the impulsive spirit of Peter, and his response is
marked by his characteristic vehemence.” (p. 146) The Greek words are εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν,
eie eis apoleian, which mean literally "let it be for destruction," or "let it be for annihilation." A
Greek-English Lexicon... claims that this word is used especially for eternal destruction as
punishment for the wicked. If this should be true, we might translate "let it go to hell!" But
compare LXX (Theodotian) Daniel 2:5 and 3:96, in both of which the phrase eis apoleian
esesthe, “you will be for destruction,” is found, on the lips of the King of Babylon. There it
obviously has nothing to do with “eternal destruction,” but only with utter destruction and
annihilation of the persons and their homes, who are being threatened by the King. The Greek
verb eie is the third person singular present optative of eimi.
358
Because you proposed to acquire the gift of God with money!49 (21) There is neither part nor
lot50 for you in this matter, for your heart is not right before God!51 (22) Turn around,52
therefore, from this your wickedness, and ask from the Lord, if perhaps53 the intention of your
49This
Simon the Magician was not the first, nor the last, to think that the gifts of God can be
purchased with wealth, or money! But this is a terrible profanation of religion, assuming that
the rich gifts of God can be bought and sold on the market, just like an item of food in the
grocery-store, or a piece of clothing in the department-store! Compare the command of Jesus
according to Matthew 10:8, “Heal those who are sick; raise dead persons; cleanse those with
incurable skin diseases; cast out demons; freely you received; freely give!” What parallel is
there between Simon and those who pile up riches for themselves and their families, and then,
when the certainty of death becomes clear to them, attempt to assure their eternal salvation
through some great gift of their wealth? Are we not making the same mistake that Simon
made--thinking that God's gifts can be purchased through wealth? Some things are not for
sale! The Spirit of God is certainly not!
50The phrase in Greek is οὐκ ἔστιν σοι μερὶς οὐδὲ κλρος ἐν τ λόγῳ τούτῳ, ouk estin
soi meris oude kleros en to logo touto, “there is neither part nor lot for you in this matter.”
Compare the language of Deuteronomy 12:12; 14:27 and 29, where it is said concerning the
Levite that ouk estin auto meris oude kleros meth’ humon, “there is not for him part nor lot
with you people,” i.e., not any inheritance of priestly prerogative or possession of land in Israel.
The phrase is an emphatic Semitic way of saying "absolutely nothing!" to Simon. Such an
attitude, assuming that money can buy the gifts of God, absolutely excludes the one holding
such an attitude from the Christian community and faith, especially from being able to share in
its “priestly” work of the impartation of the Spirit!
51Compare Psalm 78:37, “Their heart was not steadfast toward him...” There can be no
substitutes! God wants human hearts, related to him in love and humble trust. We cannot
assume that we are good enough, or powerful enough, or rich enough, to be able to "buy
divine gifts," able to "pay God off," and purchase our way religiously! If we have any such
ideas concerning our wealth, we need to get rid of them, if we want to get right with God!
52It is the same verb used by Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost at Acts 2:38,
only there it was the plural imperative verb, while here it is the singular imperative verb,
μετανόησον, metanoeson, “turn around!” It is the ancient call of the Spokespersons of Israel,
demanding that Israel 'turn around," radically changing their minds and their lives! Peter does
not say that Simon's condition is hopeless--his command implies that there is still the
possibility that Simon will experience a change of heart and attitude that will enable him to
enter into a correct relationship with God (through humble, entreating prayer). But it will never
happen with his present attitude towards his money and the possibility of purchasing the gifts
of God! No, Peter does not say that Simon’s condition is hopeless--but neither does he assure
Simon of forgiveness, imparting an assurance of “cheap grace.” Quite to the contrary--all
depends upon Simon, and Simon’s heart-condition! See the next footnote.
53The phrase in Greek, εἰ ἄρα, ei ara, “if perhaps,” is unusual, and implies that something is
tentative, uncertain, no more than possible. We are reminded of the language in Jonah 1:6
and 3:9, where the captain of the ship says "Get up! Cry out to the gods! Perhaps the gods
will give a thought to us, and we will not perish!" The King of Nineveh responds to Jonah's
proclamation that Nineveh is going to be destroyed with humble penitence, and says, "Who
knows? The God may turn and may have compassion; and he may turn back from the heat of
359
heart may be forgiven you;54 (23) for I see55 that you are into bitter gall,56 and a bond57 of
his anger--and we will not perish!" Compare the same statement made in Joel 2:14.
Destruction may be determined, it may seem that there is no hope--but who knows?
Perhaps...! It is a hope against hope--not a certainty by any means! But who are we weak
humans to limit the grace and mercy of God? This appears to be Peter’s attitude here.
54No, Peter is not the "Distributor of Easy Grace." He does not rush to Simon, assuring him
of God's love and mercy that can cover any and every evil purpose. Instead, he dares to
confront Simon with the enormity of his evil, and offers only a possibility, a hope, that he may
be forgiven. We may well ask ourselves what we would do in such a situation. Are we inclined
to avoid the confrontation, to down-play the reality of human evil, to become
dispensers of "cheap grace"? Oftentimes the modern Protestant Church does just that--with
its refusal to stoutly call sinners to repentance, and with its offer of grace and forgiveness
regardless of the wrong attitudes held by guilty people! Peter, of course, believed that Jesus
had died on behalf of Simon; he believed in the possibility of divine forgiveness even for the
murderers of Jesus. But he also recognized that it is possible for so-called believers to so
cheapen their religion, and to have such evil purposes in their hearts, that the divine
forgiveness becomes almost impossible!
Haenchen comments that "We now learn, however, that--contrary to the teaching of the
Epistle to the Hebrews--a possibility of repentance for this grave post-baptismal sin is still
open to Simon. Yet it remains uncertain whether the wicked 'thought of his heart'--this is the
seat of sin!--will indeed be forgiven him." (p. 305) It is remarkable how this locating of the
"seat of sin" within the human heart is directly in line with the teaching of Jesus in Mark 7!
McGarvey found in this text the basis for a “second plan of salvation”--i.e., the steps which a
confessing believer must take in order to be forgiven, in distinction from the steps taken by the
unbeliever in first coming to Jesus as Lord. He stated that Simon “...fell, as many a man still
falls, when an old slumbering passion is suddenly aroused. Peter therefore does not say to
him as to an alarmed man of the world, ‘Repent and be baptized’; but as to a sinning disciple,
‘Repent and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.’” (p. 148)
McGarvey went on to state that “The ‘perhaps’ very clearly indicates a doubt whether
forgiveness would be attainable. The doubt was based on the uncertainty in Peter’s mind,
whether the repentance of such a man under such circumstances could be sufficiently
thorough to secure forgiveness.” (p. 148)
But again we insist that McGarvey’s interpretation reads much into the ancient text, with
these distinctions between the requirements for non-Christians and the requirements for the
believer who has missed-the-mark. Luke certainly does not draw out these distinctions nearly
so clearly as his legalistic interpreters wish he had!
55Instead of the verb ὁρ, horo, “I see,” Bezae, E (Laudianus), Minuscule 614, and a few
other Greek manuscripts read theoro, “I observe.” Here again we witness the freedom of the
copyists to replace a verb in the original text with a synonym--but not changing the meaning of
Luke’s narrative.
56The phrase χολὴν πικρίας, cholen pikrias, which we have translated "bitter gall," comes
from the sense of taste, in which such substances as gall, or wormwood, or poison, have a
bitter, nauseating taste, that would lead to vomiting, sickness, and even death. It is as if Peter
said, "The smell of death is all over you!" An almost identical phrase is found at
Deuteronomy 29:17 in the LXX, me tis estin en humin hriza ano phuousa en chole kai
360
wrong relationship!"58
(24) Then Simon, answering, said,59 "Will60 you (people) please ask on my behalf61 to
pikria, “lest there is anyone among you people, a root sprouting upwards in gall and
bitterness.” See also Lamentations 3:15, where chole and pikria appear together as
describing what the Jews suffering in Babylonian captivity experienced as coming from the
hand of YHWH God! The Louw-Nida Dictionary holds that this phrase means “to be
particularly envious or resentful of someone,” “to be bitterly jealous.” (88.166)
57Instead of the phrase εἰς γὰρ χολὴν πικρίας καὶ σύνδεσμον, eis gar cholen pikrias
kai sundesmon, “for into bitter gall and a bond,” read by the great majority of Greek
witnesses, the first writer of Bezae and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.) read
en gar pikrias chole kai sundesmo, “for in a gall of bitterness and in a bond.” Here again the
copyist / translator expresses the freedom to change and enhance the words of the original
text, changing the preposition from eis to en, and reversing the order of words (cholen pikrias
becomes pikrias chole), as well as changing the case of nouns (chole for cholen, and
sundesmo for sundesmon). Still, as we have seen on so many occasions, the copyists /
translators are very careful not to change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
58The phrase sundesmon tes adikias, “bond of wrong relationship,” occurs in the LXX at
Isaiah 58:6, where it is mentioned as the kind of “yoke” that the true worshiper of YHWH must
break if he wants to observe the kind of doing without food (i.e., ritual of worship) that YHWH
God truly desires. Peter means that Simon is in a terribly wrong relationship with God, and
that wrong relationship has "tied him up," it has so limited him and bound him that it is only with
great difficulty that he can get loose from it! If he can be forgiven, it will demand great effort on
his part--it will not be simply, or easily accomplished! McGarvey noted that “Simon’s destitute
and miserable condition has been construed by many as proof that he had been a hypocrite
from the beginning. Whether this inference is justifiable, depends upon the question whether
conversion involves so complete a renovation that old mental habits are entirely eradicated,
never to exert their power again. If this is true, then Simon was certainly not a genuine
convert. But if, as both Scripture and experience teach, the turning of a sinner to God leaves
his passions still within him in a latent state, ready to spring into activity under
temptation, it must be admitted that Simon may have been a truly penitent believer when he
was baptized; and inasmuch as Luke says, with all the facts before him, that he did believe
(verse 13), we must not deny this inspired testimony.” (p. 147)
In later centuries, this question of what to do with the “lapsed” became a burning issue,
especially in North Africa--but it is obvious that Luke is not concerned with that later question,
and has not taken care to so word his story as to shed any clear light on that subject.
However, legalistic interpreters of Acts have so understood this story, and have conceived of it
as giving a “second plan of salvation”--i.e., not for the unbeliever, but for the lapsed believer!
We insist that there is one “plan of salvation” for all--it is centered in returning to God!
59Bezae and the Middle Egyptian version interpolate pros autous, “to them.” Here again,
the copyist / translator demonstrates the freedom to add to, and enhance the language of the
original text--but without changing the meaning of Luke’s narrative in any significant way!
60Bezae, Minuscule 614, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts gig
and r, plus the Harclean Syriac (with markings to indicate the reading was not found in the
exemplar being copied), and the Middle Egyptian version interpolate the verb parakalo, “I
beg...” What we have just remarked concerning the variant in the preceding footnote applies
361
the Lord,62 so that nothing which you have said may come upon me?"63
here as well.
61Instead of ὑπὲρ, huper, “on behalf of,” the first writer of Bezae and a few other Greek
manuscripts read peri, “concerning.” This variant again shows how “fluid” many Greek
prepositions are, such as eis and en, and here, huper and peri. Legalistic interpreters of the
Greek New Testament, who become very exact and precise in their definitions of Greek
prepositions, need to take the evidence of these variant readings into consideration!
62Instead of κύριον, kurion, “Lord,” Bezae, Minuscules 33 (see), 614, 1505, a few other
Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript p, some manuscripts of the Vulgate, the Peshitta
and Harclean Syriac, and the Middle Egyptian version read theon, “God.” The variant makes
no difference for the meaning of Luke’s narrative, and reminds us of the many other variants in
textual studies where this same alternation between Kurios and Theos occurs.
63For the phrase ἐπ̓ ἐμὲ ν εἰρήκατε, ep’ eme hon eirekate, “upon me those things you
have said,” the first writer of Bezae, the Harclean Syriac margin (see), plus the Middle
Egyptian witnesses read moi touton ton kakon hon eirekate moi, and then interpolates: hos
polla klaion ou dielimpanen, “...on me these evil things which you have said to me. Who,
crying many things would not cease...” A corrector of Bezae has omitted this last interpolation.
The variant demonstrates again the freedom felt by copyists and translators to change and add
to the original text--ep’ eme is changed to moi; hon is lengthened to touton ton kakon hon;
the preposition moi is added, and then the longer phrase is also added at the end. These
copyists / translators certainly did not feel constrained to write only what they found written!
Still, with all their freedom and interpolations and changes, they respected the original text to
such an extent that they did not change Luke’s meaning--not here, and hardly anywhere else!
To all appearances, Simon has gotten the message--and with a very humble attitude,
asks for the prayers of Peter and John (perhaps also of the believers in Samaria) on his behalf,
requesting that he not enter into destruction, and that the bitter consequences of his condition
not be fatal for him! But we are reminded of the very similar requests that Pharaoh of Egypt
made of Moses, but which were quickly revealed to be superficial and impermanent--see
Exodus 8:8 (4, LXX), 28 (24, LXX); 9:28, and 10:17.
McGarvey commented that “This response shows plainly that Peter’s scathing speech
terrified Simon, but there it stops...Although he disappears in a more hopeful condition, he
leaves no assurance of final repentance and salvation. Many traditions are related of his
subsequent career by Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the author of
the Clementine Recognitions, all writers of the second century; but most of them are
certainly legendary, and none of them are at all reliable. It is not wise to fill the memory with
idle tales in regard to Biblical characters.” (pp. 148-49) We understand McGarvey’s point,
and acknowledge the legendary nature of many stories told in later centuries by Christian
leaders. But we also observe that McGarvey places great confidence in these same leaders
and in their writings, when it comes to determining authorship and date of New Testament
documents. We would be inclined to place much more confidence in later authors,
acknowledging their proclivity to becoming victims of legend with little basis in historical reality,
but also believing that even legends and myths can still offer genuine guidance in regards to
such matters. Are we to think that the later Church simply invented these stories about
Simon? Are there no real historical persons to account for the rise of Gnosticism and its
associated “heresies”?
362
(25) Then therefore,64 having given [their] solemn testimony, and having spoken the
Word of the Lord,65 they were returning to Jerusalem; and they were announcing Good News
to many villages of the Samaritans.66
Many questions come to our minds as we read this opening story in Acts 8. Why is the
Spirit of God pictured as being imparted by the laying on of the hands of Peter and John-instead of just coming directly on the believers, as happened in Acts 2, and in the story of the
Ethiopian official later in this same chapter? Was something wrong with their immersion?
And, who is this strange man, Simon the Magician? Why does Peter get so angry with him?
What is the meaning of this story? What can we learn from it that is of importance for our lives
today?
First, it is important to see that this is the story of how the Good News began its
worldwide spread beyond Jerusalem and Judea, to march triumphantly across the length and
breadth of the Roman Empire in the first century--a march that continues today as the Good
News is being proclaimed all across our twentieth century world. Samaria is not far from
Jerusalem--only some thirty miles--not much different than say, from Dallas to Fort Worth, or
from Miami, Florida to Fort Lauderdale. That's not very far in terms of miles traveled, even if
on foot. But measured in terms of the hatred and alienation that existed between Samaria and
Jerusalem in the first century world, the two places were oceans apart!
It was in the eighth century B.C. that the Northern Kingdom of Israel was carried away
into Assyrian captivity. The majority of Israel's population was taken away, never to return.
Only a minority of the poorest people were left in the area known as Samaria. The Assyrians,
following their national policy, sent colonists into Samaria to intermarry with the native
this identical phrase, Οἱ μὲν ον, Hoi men oun, at the beginning of verse 4, with its
footnote 1.
65The phrase το κυρίου, tou kuriou, “of the Lord,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, E (Laudianus), Minuscules 33, 1739, the “Majority Text,” the
Vulgate and some manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Harclean Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic, and
the Middle Egyptian version. Tou theou, “of God,” is read by P74, Alexandrinus, Psi,
Minuscule 326, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript t, some manuscripts
of the Vulgate, the Peshitta Syriac, and the Bohairic Coptic. See footnote 62.
64See
Compare the following passages for this matter of speaking the “Word”: Acts 4:29, 31;
11:19; 13:46; 14:25; 16:6, 32; Philippians 1:14, and Hebrews 13:7.
66We have said earlier that the Ambassadors from Jerusalem were not at all resentful of the
welcome given to the Samaritans by Philipp in his announcement of the Good News there
(see footnote 36). They have come to the Samaritans, prayed for them, and have been
instrumental in their being filled with the Spirit of God. Now, following their conflict with Simon
the Magician, they return on their way to Jerusalem--but as they journey throughout the
Samaritan area, they announce the Good News in village after village--further expanding and
enlarging upon the work begun by Philipp! They are not by any means opponents of this
mission--rather, they are direct and willing participants in it!
363
population there. As far as the Jews in Jerusalem were concerned, the resulting population
were "half-breeds," and were certainly not worthy of any longer being called "Jews." If you
read the literature of the first century, you will quickly learn how hated and despised the
Samaritan people were by the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea. They were not allowed to
participate in the Jewish religion; they were considered unclean; it is obvious that the Jews
wanted nothing to do with them!
In fact, Phillip's going down to a city in Samaria to announce the Good News of the
Kingdom of God, and of Jesus, the King, is about like one of our deacons in an earlier century,
say in 1865, going into the black community in a large southern city, and proclaiming the Good
News, inviting all the former slaves to come and take membership in our local congregation.
Better yet, it's like one of our deacons going out to a group of people with AIDS, telling them
the Good News, and inviting them to come and join in our congregation! What would you think
of that?
This is the kind of dynamic that lies behind this passage. Phillip is crossing over a
barrier that had been erected between Jerusalem and Samaria for over 500 years--an ancient
Berlin Wall is going down in this story! Jesus had said that his followers were to be his
witnesses, "...Both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and as far as the end of the
earth!" (Acts 1:8) He brought the Kingdom of God to this earth--and its goal is nothing less
than reaching out to all the earth--including the earth's most excluded, most despised
populations! The meaning of this story in Acts 8 is that the desire of King Jesus is being
carried out--his followers are leaving Jerusalem and Judea, and reaching out across the
centuries-old barriers, to begin the work of extending the Kingdom of God into every portion of
this earth, including those people most hated and despised by the Jews!
It is important to understand that the persecution that started with the stoning of
Stephen was used by God to enable this movement out of Judea and into Samaria! God
brought about a tremendous step forward, through what appeared to be nothing less than a
terrible tragedy! The biblical theology of a God who acts in the midst of evil to bring about
good and deliverance for his people is once again expressed in this story.
I believe that the coming of Peter and John to place their hands on those first Samaritan
believers, enabling their reception of the Set-apart Spirit, is an indication of the fact that this
whole movement was for real--it was from God, and the Ambassadors of the risen Lord Jesus
placed their hands of approval on them, at the same time that God showed his approval of
what was happening by bestowing the Spirit! That's the excitement that lies behind this text-and if we have ears to hear, it also tells us what we ought to be about in our own work in our
congregations!
We are not here just to meet our own needs, just to enjoy the blessings of the Good
News of Jesus and the Kingdom of God for ourselves. We are a mission-station of our Lord
and King Jesus--we have that same urgent mission to fulfill in our time and place--to extend
the Kingdom of God to all people, especially to those very people who are the most despised,
and the most unlikely to have heard the Good News! And just as happened in that ancient City
of Samaria, when we follow our Lord's commission to proclaim Good News to them, that
Message will still come with cleansing, healing power, enabling the Kingdom of God to be
multiplied even today!
364
But now let us ask, who was this strange person, Simon the Magician? Indeed, what is
a "magician"? And, what is the difference between genuine religion and magic?
Some years ago, we shared in sponsoring the magical tricks of Andre Kole, and
following that presentation, we were able to share with a large group of young people in
listening to his presentation of the Good News of Jesus, the risen Lord. Kole's magical tricks
were nothing short of sensational. He is one of the world's greatest "illusionists." He
explained, both before his performance, and then after them, that nothing he did was anything
other than "tricks," "illusions," done by means of mirrors, and by sleight of hand.
His act was truly astounding--for example, as he got two large adults into small boxes,
then merged those two boxes into one, and stuck swords through them; or as he to all
appearances "levitated"--floated in the air in a sitting position, while his helpers passed a metal
ring all around him, showing that there were no wires or supports either above or beneath him.
Following his performance, Kole gave a sermon--stating that there is no such thing as
real "magic," but that it is all performed by means of illusion, by sleight of hand--absolutely no
supernatural power! Instead, as Kole testifies, the only really miraculous power that there is, is
that which is found in Jesus the Lord. "No tricks, no illusions in Jesus," says Kole. No
magician could ever reproduce the miracles done by Jesus--such things as the walking on
water, or the feeding of the 5,000 with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. Especially the
resurrection of Jesus from the dead--not a trick, not an illusion, not a matter of sleight of hand-but the expression of the mighty power of Almighty God in human history!
At the Civic Center where his presentation was made, Kole had on sale copies of his
book, Miracles or Magic?, at the cost of only $5.00 per copy. In that book, he deals with this
question of the difference between genuine miracles and magical tricks. He gives numerous
illustrations of magical tricks, which are passed off on the public as being examples of
supernatural power--but which are in reality nothing more than illusion, and sleight of hand.
Kole holds that so-called "Extra-Sensory-Perception" is nothing more than mental
trickery, and demonstrates how many of the so-called "miraculous healings" and operations
done by witch-doctors and faith-healers all around the world are nothing more than well-known
tricks, that he and many other magicians can easily do themselves, without any miraculous
power.
Kole deals with "fire-walking," and shows how it can all be explained by natural laws
that are in operation, that do not in any way imply supernatural power. Kole shows how socalled "spiritualists" or "mediums" train themselves to quickly observe and gain many facts
concerning their clients, and then use those facts to amaze them, and convince them that they
have access to supernatural power. Kole insists that in fact, anyone trained in those
techniques can do the same things, completely apart from any real supernatural power.
Kole agrees with the earlier great illusionist and magician, Harry Houdini, who in his
book entitled A Magician Among the Spirits concluded: "To my knowledge I have never
been baffled in the least by what I have seen at seances. Everything I have seen has been
merely a form of mystification. The secret of all such performances is to catch the mind off
guard and the moment after it has been surprised to follow up with something else that carries
the intelligence along with the performer, even against the spectator's will...’I have said many
365
times that I am willing to believe, want to believe, will believe, if the spiritualists can show any
substantiated proof, but until they do I shall have to live on, believing from all the evidence
shown me and from what I have experienced that spiritualism has not been proven
satisfactorily to the world at large and that none of the evidence offered has been able to stand
up under the fierce rays of investigations.’” (pp. 266, 270; quoted by Kole, pp. 55-56)
Kole explains how easy it is to get caught up and be mislead when we don't realize how
these people are accomplishing their illusions, or deceptions--and to think that we are face to
face with the genuine power of the supernatural--when in reality, all that we are facing is
trickery and illusion. If you didn't know who Andre Kole was, and just saw his magical tricks
without any explanation, you would easily be convinced that he has supernatural power! 67
The difference between genuine miracles and magical tricks is just this: in genuine
miracles, God himself acts freely, by his gracious compassion, to grant healing, and cleansing-while in magic, human beings attempt to force God to act through various activities which they
claim are the key to unlocking the divine power--such as by the use of magical potions, or the
67Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary defines "magic" as follows: "The art...which claims
...to be able to compel a...supernatural power to do...some act or to change temporarily the
order of natural events, or...to produce effects by the assistance of supernatural beings, such
as angels, demons, or departed spirits, or by a mastery of secret forces in nature. Magic is not
clearly differentiated from science by primitive peoples. It is a part of most primitive
religions. With the rise of Christianity to power many magical practices were banned; the
Church condemned resort to spirits and demons for knowledge or assistance (as in witchcraft,
sorcery, diabolism) not as false but as evil, or black magic. Magic which aims to produce
death or injury is also called black magic. On white, or natural magic, no ban was placed, and
largely from this, which also survives in legerdemain [‘sleight of hand’] was developed modern
natural science.” (p. 1479)
This definition is helpful. But it is a mistake to think that only "With the rise of
Christianity" many magical practices were banned. The fact is that those magical practices
were banned much earlier by the Jewish Bible and Jewish law-givers, centuries prior to the
rise of Christianity. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 states: "When you come into the land that YHWH
your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations.
No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who
practices divination, or is a sooth-sayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or
who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. For whoever does these
things is abhorrent to YHWH; it is because of such practices that YHWH your God is driving
them out before you. You must remain completely loyal to YHWH your God. Although these
nations that you are about to dispossess do give heed to soothsayers and diviners, as for you,
YHWH your God does not permit you to do so."
All forms of magic were thereby forbidden to those who wanted to be true to the God of
Israel. Attempts to determine the divine will by any other way than simply listening to his
messengers, the spokespersons, whom YHWH God would raise up for that purpose, were
forbidden. The people of YHWH God were not to go to mediums, or sorcerers, or practice any
form of witchcraft! We are to depend on God's gracious gifts, and not on human
manipulations that seek to force divine action! The person who is loyal to YHWH God will not
resort to magic!
366
repetition of magical formulas.
The fact is, as Kole shows, we human beings have no power over God. We can only
trust God, and his self-revelation, calling upon God in genuine prayer, then trusting him for the
results, and being thankful for whatever gifts he may give us. There is a great difference
between prayer and magical tricks. Kole quotes the following statement with approval: “Prayer
is not magic. It is a relationship with God in an intimate, ongoing relationship of love, where we
may express our adoration of Him as a person and our God. It is where we can safely express
ourselves in the depth of who we are, confessing our sins and accepting His forgiveness.
Prayer is where we seek God's support in our vulnerability and needs, and lastly, where we
ask for His help and encouragement in our lives, relationships, and work, by His will and His
love for us. To engage in prayer as magic is to reject the autonomous holy person, God. To
engage in prayer as relationship is to be vulnerable, and to trust God's goodness and wisdom."
(Quoting Karen Hoyle, p. 144)
This is what Kole believes about prayer. He prays constantly, every day, in every area
of life. He asks for God to direct his life, and to supply his needs--and it is his testimony that
God has constantly guided him and provided for him throughout his life. No magic--just devout
trust in God, and constant, loving adoration for, and communication with, God! It was this kind
of faith in, and intimate relationship with God, that enabled Kole to go through the death of his
first wife Aljeana, with both of them meeting her tragic death with peace and great joy, even
though God did not grant a miraculous healing to her life-ending brain tumor.
Kole states, "Certainly God can and does heal today, but He does not heal everyone
who comes to Him, even when they come in faith. Jesus Christ, when He lived on this earth,
healed many people, but He did not heal all. Many wanted to be healed but never had the
chance. God still loved them, and He loves us too. We may never understand His workings,
but we can rest assured that His individual plan for each one of us is best." (p. 176)
Kole refers to Joni Eareckson Tada, a great contemporary Christian whose neck was
broken, and who prayed along with her entire church for healing, but who has nonetheless had
to face life as a paraplegic. Kole concludes that much of the time, God says no to our
requests, and asks us to trust him even in the midst of our sickness and our suffering. "God
does heal people in miraculous ways, but it is His decision--His sovereign choice." We cannot
manipulate or force that divine decision--we must trust God when the answer is no.
Kole quotes the words of Joni: "I sometimes shudder to think where I would be today if I
had not broken my neck. I couldn't see at first why God would possibly allow it, but I sure do
now. He has gotten so much more glory through my paralysis than through my health! And
believe me, you'll never know how rich that makes me feel. If God chooses to heal you in
answer to your prayers, that's great. Thank Him for it. But if He chooses not to, thank Him
anyway. You can be sure He has His reasons." (A Step Further, p. 155)
Simon the Magician, as described in Acts 8, knew all sorts of magical tricks For some
time he had amazed the people of Samaria with his tricks--just as Andre Kole could do if he so
desired. But when Philipp came to that City of Samaria, announcing the Good News of the
Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, Simon himself was amazed. He saw the genuine,
supernatural power of God at work in Philipp, and he knew immediately, as only one practiced
in magical tricks can know, that this was the real thing! Here was something that he, with all
367
his knowledge of magic, could not duplicate or explain away. And so, he immediately wanted
to get that power for himself--and to that end, he offered Peter money, in order to purchase the
power of the Set-apart Spirit of God! That was his big mistake! God's power is not for sale!
Peter turned to Simon the Magician, and told him in very blunt words, "Your money, together
with you, may go to hell! Because you proposed to acquire the gift of God with money! There
is neither part nor lot for you in this matter, for your heart is not right before God! Turn around,
therefore, from this your wickedness, and ask from the Lord, if perhaps the
intention of your heart may be forgiven you; for I see that you are into bitter gall, and a bond of
wrong relationship!"
We have asked earlier, "Why did Peter get so angry at Simon the Magician?" "Why
such a fierce attack on this new convert, Simon? After all, what would you expect from a
former magician--why shouldn't he expect to be able to share in this marvelous new power?
And why not be willing to pay for it?”
Our answer is that such an attitude is a terrible misunderstanding of genuine religion.
Magic supposes that God is at the beck and call of human beings--that if we say the right
formulas, or mix the correct potions, or pay an adequate amount of money, we human beings
can gain control of divine power, becoming able to accomplish miracles whenever we desire-we can truly become "divine men," bearing divine power within ourselves! Yes, Simon the
Magician assumed that money can purchase such power--but nothing can be farther from the
truth!
The fact is that the divine power of God is his alone to give, and to control. Any human
effort to take control ourselves, like Simon the Magician proposed to do, terribly perverts and
misunderstands the meaning of genuine religion! As Andre Kole has pointed out, there are still
religious people whose attitude toward the miraculous is very similar to that of Simon: treating
the Christian religion as little more than another form of "magic," assuming that the gift of God
can be purchased or controlled with money. Through the use of such things as prayer-cloths,
or the use of certain formulas in prayer, it is claimed that human beings can exert power that
will result in miraculous cures and enable those paying the right price, or going through the
correct ceremonies, to become wealthy and successful. What a far cry this is, however, from
genuine religion!
Yes, it is still very tempting and easy for Christians to resort to magical practices--such
as implying that the wearing of a St. Christopher's medal will keep the believer safe from
accidents, or that having a golden cross hung around our neck will keep us from harm's way. I
believe that it is all right to wear religious medallions, as reminders of our faith--but it is nothing
less than magical superstition to think that they hold any inherent power, or can force or
influence God to help us through their use.
It is a fact that genuine faith in God, expressed in heart-felt prayer, is a powerful healing
force--and that sometimes God's miraculous power will be expressed in our lives, as God
lovingly hears our prayers, and responds with his healing power. Indeed, I believe that all
healing comes from God--whether through the use of medicines, or the work of skilled
surgeons. God uses and grants his blessing through them--every bit of the healing that
comes, is a result of his healing power that comes as his gracious gift to us. But we will be
returning to magic, if we think that touching a cloth blessed by some person will bring that
healing, or that there is some special olive-oil, or holy water, that will cause mira-cles to
368
happen in our lives. If God wishes to heal us, or bless us, he will, by his grace and mercy, do
so. But nothing we do can compel the miraculous to happen on our behalf. We can only
humbly trust in him, and ask for his blessing in obedient prayer. Then, we must leave the
results up to God.
The preaching of the Word of God--concerning Jesus, and the King, and the Kingdom of
God--has dynamic power in human life. When we hear that Good News, and respond to it in
faith, great and powerful events will happen in our hearts and in our lives. Signs and wonders
will be seen--but not because of what we have done--simply because of the fact that God is at
work in human history, bringing salvation and new life to his people through the preaching of
the Good News!
The same thing is true, I believe, with regards to baptism and the Lord's Supper. If we
think that we can gain divine power by being baptized, or that the waters of baptism have
miraculous, cleansing power, we are returning to a magical view of religion. If we pretend that
the bread and the wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus, which impart supernatural
power by partaking of them, we are not far from that same magical view. Both baptism and the
Lord's Supper are powerful symbols of God's gracious gifts to us--but they are not magical
elements that we can control. Only God's free act of forgiveness to the penitent believer, and
only his constant gift of life can do any of us any good.
Religious acts are not magical tools--they are only the humble response of people of
faith to the grace of God! That's the difference between magic and religion! In genuine
Christianity, the Good News is preached, and salvation is proclaimed as the free gift of God
alone, a gift which is offered to all people who will respond with a life of turning around and
placing trust in that Good News. True religion never pretends to be able to force the hand of
God, or to be able to prescribe rites or formulas that will coerce divine power to act on our
behalf. Rather, genuine religion simply asks for God's salvation, and healing power--and then
leaves it up to God whether or not to grant his gracious gifts.
But all is not lost for Simon the Magician. As a result of Peter's strong denunciation,
Simon humbly requests that Peter and John pray for him. Peter does not act as if he had
control of God's forgiveness--he utters those memorable words, "Perhaps the intention of your
heart may be forgiven you." In so saying, he urges Simon to cast himself on God's mercy and
grace, without any manipulation, without any pretense to being able to purchase or force the
hand of God. That's the basis for Simon's hope--and indeed, it is the only hope that any of us
can ever have!
369