In Acts 8:14-19, the new Christians in Samaria received “the Holy Spirit.” But what did they receive? What does this expression mean? Did they receive a spiritual gift? Did they receive a non-miraculous indwelling of the Spirit? Were they baptized in the Holy Spirit? These questions are legitimate to ask, but the answer is not always easy because of the way the Holy Spirit is used in the New Testament. Further complications arise due to the fact that many have written erroneously concerning the subject, often doing nothing more than making assertions.
For decades brethren have taught that spiritual gifts were given only through the laying on of the apostles’ hands (except with Cornelius), but Mac Deaver disagrees with this doctrine (as he does with just about everything else that brethren—his former self included—have taught concerning the Holy Spirit). In his Spring 2011 issue of Biblical Notes Quarterly, he makes the following assertion (without any proof):
…the laying on of apostolic hands does not mean that the apostles were the source of the Spirit’s being given in the sense that in Acts 8 and in Acts 19, their hands provided the identification of those to receive the Holy Spirit from God….
The apostles could only give the Spirit in the sense of identifying, by the laying on of their hands, those to whom the Spirit was to be given by God (specifically by Jesus Christ—Mat. 3:11) (6).
If this allegation makes no sense to the reader, he should not fret unduly; it is a sign that he is normal and rational. Why did those receiving the Holy Spirit need to be identified? For whom was the identification necessary? Certainly, it was not for the Holy Spirit’s benefit. Can anyone imagine God needing help identifying who would receive the Spirit? The argument could never be made that the identification was for the apostles’ edification, since they are the ones who were performing the laying on of hands. Did those who had just been baptized need to know who they were? Surely, their memories could not be that dim. The only group left would be observers, perhaps those who had heard Philip preach but had not obeyed, but even they would know those who had. What we are left with is an identification process for no one in particular. What kind of sense does that make?
Philip
What do we know about Philip, who preached to the Samaritans? He is not the Philip who is one of the apostles mentioned in the gospel accounts and in Acts 1:13. This is the Philip that was selected in Acts 6 to serve along with Stephen and five other men (Acts 6:5-6) to make sure that none of the widows were neglected in the daily distribution of food (1). The reason for selecting these men to take care of the matter was that the apostles wanted to devote themselves “continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). Philip the apostle would not have been chosen for serving tables in order to free himself up to do those other tasks.
After the death of Stephen someone named Philip went down to Samaria to preach. Was it the apostle or the one listed among the seven? The apostles, after Stephen’s death, remained in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). So it was the one the Scriptures call Philip the evangelist who went to Samaria (Acts 21:8). Also, if this had been Philip the apostle, then the apostles would not have needed to send two apostles down to Samaria, since one would have already been there (Acts 8:14).
When Philip went down to the city of Samaria, he “preached Christ to them.” Later, when he met with the queen’s treasurer from Ethiopia, the text says that he “preached Jesus to him” (Acts 8:35). Obviously, Philip did the same thing with both audiences, and they both responded by being baptized. In the latter instance, we read that “both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38). In the former account, it is stated that, “when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12). This action of theirs is also referred to as “Samaria had received the word of God” (Acts 8:14) and “being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).
Simon the Sorcerer
One of those present in Samaria was a magician named Simon who was so effective that he actually astonished the people. He got away with saying that what he did was by the great power of God (Acts 8:9). In fact, he convinced the people of that notion (Acts 8:10). He had not merely done a trick or two but managed to keep the people astonished “with his sorceries for a long time” (Acts 8:11). The text makes a point of this ability to convince the Samaritans for a reason—to serve as a contrast to the true power of God which Philip had. Simon saw all the miracles and signs that Philip did, and it convinced him to believe and be baptized (Acts 8:13). Certainly, a professional magician knows the difference between an illusion and actual power from God.
Then something occurred which not only further intrigued Simon; it tempted him as well. The apostles appointed Peter and John to go to Samaria; when they arrived, “they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15). Now the confusion starts. What is meant by the Holy Spirit here? Is it the Holy Spirit Himself? Is it the non-miraculous indwelling? Is it a spiritual gift? Is it the baptism of the Holy Spirit? We know that, whatever it was, they did not receive it until Peter and John “laid their hands on them” (Acts 8:17). When that occurred, the text says that “they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17). Simon had already been amazed while he accompanied Philip (Acts 8:13), but now he saw something that made him extremely excited. We read:
“Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power, that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:18-19).
Will Mac seriously argue that Simon wanted the ability to identify “those to whom the Spirit was to be given”? How manifestly absurd is such a notion! The former sorcerer really desired to have the ability to give the Holy Spirit to people.
What Did Simon Try To Buy?
Four times in Acts 8:15-19 the giving or receiving of the Holy Spirit is mentioned, but a further definition of it is lacking—except for the fact that Simon wanted to buy the power to do the same thing the apostles did. Peter told him that his money would perish along with him because he had thought he could purchase “the gift of God” (Acts 8:20). To what does the gift of God refer? It does not refer to the gift of salvation which all receive (Eph. 2:8-9), nor does it refer to one of the nine spiritual gifts enumerated later by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. This gift is something that only the apostles could do—impart the Holy Spirit to others. In all of the New Testament, no human being other than an apostle ever imparted the Holy Spirit to another. If anyone could have done so, then Philip would have already done it. For that reason the apostles sent Peter and John because they knew that those who were not apostles did not have the ability to give the Holy Spirit.
The Samaritans’ receiving the Holy Spirit was an event that was observable, since Simon saw it. It could not, therefore, have been a non-miraculous indwelling of the Spirit. Simon did not witness the Samaritans’ being baptized in the Holy Spirit because Jesus imparted that, and the presence of Peter and John would not have been required (Matt. 3:11). The only legitimate option remaining is that the Samaritans received a spiritual gift, but how valid is such a view? It is the best and only idea that fits all of the facts that we have.
Peter told Simon that he had neither part nor portion in this matter (Acts 8:21). The word translated “portion” (NKJ) or “lot” (KJV) in Acts 8:21 could have a special significance. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John used this word for casting “lots” for Jesus’ clothes. Luke also uses it that way in Acts 1:26, where they cast lots for Judas’ replacement and the “lot” fell upon Matthias. Luke used the Greek word twice prior to that verse. In Acts 1:17 Peter mentioned that Judas obtained a part in the ministry with the other apostles and now it was appropriate to replace him. Again, the disciples prayed in Acts 1:25 and asked the Lord to show which of the two men He had chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship. Many think that Peter was telling Simon in Acts 8:21 that he did not have a portion (part, lot) in that work.
The Evidence for the Holy Spirit’s Being a Spiritual Gift
1. First, it would have been visible and observable. In Acts 19, when Paul laid his hands on the Ephesians, “they spoke with tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:6)
2. Heretofore, Simon had been amazed by the miracles and signs that Philip did, but the text does not say that he offered Philip money to do the same things he was doing. Nor did he offer silver and gold for the apostles to give him that gift; he coveted something even greater than that—the ability to grant those powers and abilities to others. He was looking at it from a worldly standpoint and thinking, “What a marvelous thing to be able to do—to give the Holy Spirit to whomever I desire.” He gives no indication that he planned to receive money for that conferring power; he probably was more interested in the prestige. He had been used to receiving admiration and saw this as a way to regain it.
3. The Holy Spirit can be used to designate that which He gives. In fact, we have an example of such in the parallel accounts of Matthew 7:7-11 and Luke 11:9-13. Both accounts begin with the “ask, seek, knock” verses. Both continue by explaining that parents do not give awful substitutes (such as a serpent for fish) to their children. Then consider the parallel statement that follows:
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!” (Matt. 7:11).
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11:13).
The only significant difference in these two verses is that the former alludes to what is given (and thus received), and the latter refers to the One giving good gifts—the Holy Spirit. This is easily explained by the figurative language that is often used in the Scriptures. This one is called metonymy of the cause (described in Dungan’s Hermeneutics 271), in which the cause (the Holy Spirit) is named instead of the effect (the good things). Thus, in Acts 8:15-19, the Holy Spirit is mentioned, but the astute Bible reader knows that it is a spiritual gift given by Him that is intended.
One final observation on the proposed transaction is that the idea of buying the power to be in charge of the things of God is named after the Sorcerer and is therefore called simony. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, simony is defined as:
The buying or selling of ecclesiastical pardons, offices, or emoluments. [Middle English simonie, from Old French, from Late Latin, simonia, after Simon Magus, a Samaritan who offered money to the Apostles Peter and John for the power of conferring the Holy Spirit on whomever he wished. Acts 8:18-19.] (1207).
Brethren’s Comments
Brethren have usually understood that the above explanation is the case—so much so that it is often assumed that everyone already understands the point, thus making long explanations for it unnecessary. Andrew Connally says tersely in his 3rd major point: “The Imparting of The Holy Spirit To Work Miracles Were [sic] by the Hands of The Apostles Only (Acts 8:14-17)”; then he adds under point A: “Exclusive power of the Apostles (Acts 8:18)” (57). J. W. McGarvey wrote:
Third, Previous to the arrival of Peter and John, none of them had received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. Fourth, Upon the imposition of the hands by the two apostles, accompanied with prayers, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, conferring miraculous gifts….
But the chief thing that they did was to confer the Holy Spirit; hence, this was the chief object of their visit. If, however, Philip could have conferred this gift, the mission, so far as the chief object of it is concerned, would have been useless. This affords strong evidence that the miraculous gift of the Spirit was bestowed by no human hands except those of the apostles (92).
Notice in the above quote that McGarvey himself uses the Holy Spirit to stand for the miraculous gift conferred by Him.
Others
Denominational writers often do not provide good interpretations of the Scriptures (such as erroneously affirming, like Mac, that the 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost instead of just the twelve), but in the case of Simon, the truth is so obvious that they often get it right. Adam Clarke asks for what purpose the Holy Spirit was given and answers: “It was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which were communicated…” (5:741). Barnes says of the giving of the Holy Spirit:
“It was something that was discernible by external effects; for Simon saw (ver. 18) that this was done by the laying on of hands” (Acts –Romans 141).
To be sure, many of these commentators mingle the concepts of their traditions with the truth, but they did understand what happened with Simon and the Samaritans. The Pulpit Commentary (as do other commentaries) speaks of the apostles laying hands on the Samaritans as a kind of confirmation, which is not a Biblical but denominational concept. But even in that error is their view of what occurred at Samaria made known. Consider these comments:
In this case, as at Pentecost, the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost was conferred. In confirmation, now that miracles have ceased, it is the ordinary and invisible grace of the Holy Spirit that is to be looked for (18:1:252).
Conclusion
Nearly everyone understands that the apostles were needed to confer a spiritual gift upon the Samaritans (which is described as receiving the Holy Spirit). They were not the source of the Spirit, but His instrument in providing spiritual gifts. Mac’s idea that the apostles were only there to identify the recipients is not only inadequate; it flies in the face of rationality. Peter and John did not impart Holy Spirit baptism but rather a spiritual gift. The text speaks for itself and is clear to all who do not have an agenda or are trying to fit the information into a false system of Holy Spirit theology. All of us must examine the text closely and think logically about what it is saying; we can comprehend the Truth.