What Happened in Samaria (Part 1)?

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

After the death of the first martyr, Stephen, Saul was making havoc of the church, and brethren were scattered from Jerusalem—except the apostles (Acts 8:1-4). "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them" (v. 5). What happens in the next 20 verses seems straightforward enough as one reads the text, but some have taken strange positions regarding it. Therefore, the purpose of this examination will be to simply look at the text for what it says and then to make pertinent applications to current ideas.

First of all, Philip preached Christ in Samaria. Philip was one of those seven men, along with Stephen, who was appointed previously to deal with the daily distribution that the church made to the widows (Acts 6:1-7). Samaria had at one time received Jesus well, after the conversation that He had with the woman at the well (John 4). Preaching Jesus was the goal of those in the first century. Peter proclaimed the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and later Paul the apostle (the former persecutor of the church, Saul) reminded brethren at Corinth that he "determined not to know anything among" them "except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). A few verses earlier, he wrote: "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness." This message is also known as "the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1-4), which Paul declares he was not ashamed to preach because it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).

Samaria's Response

And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. And there was great joy in that city (Acts 8:6-8).

This statement summarizes what occurred in Samaria; more details—especially as it regards one particular man—will be provided beginning in verse 9. Before getting to that next section, however, a few observations about this passage are in order. Verse 6 not only explains that Philip's preaching enjoyed a great reception, but it also explains why. In a word, the answer is evidence. Why should they have believed the message about Christ being raised from the dead? As is the case with all people everywhere, someone rising from the dead is not in our experience.

Philip convinced them not only by his preaching but by the miracles that he did. Many slick orators can convince crowds of almost anything, but for such a claim as Jesus dying for our sins and arising from His grave, it takes something extraordinary for a speaker to have any credibility. Philip did miracles in the presence of the people. Verse 7 says that he cast out unclean spirits—something Jesus and the apostles had done previously. He also healed those who were paralyzed and lame. We do not have individual instances as we do with Peter and John when they healed a lame man (Acts 3:1-10) or Jesus (John 5:1-9). We do not know the number of those who were healed, but it was sufficient for all of those in Samaria to be convinced of the gospel.

Where did Philip get the ability to perform miracles? The text does not tell us. We know that the apostles had the ability, but this Philip was not an apostle. He had remained in Jerusalem; thus, it appears that he was the Philip who was one of the seven. But nowhere does the Bible indicate that anyone except the apostles worked miracles until Acts 6:8. Not one passage says that the multitude of disciples in Jerusalem spoke in tongues, did miracles, or healed anyone. All of these things are ascribed only to the apostles—until Acts 6. The first individual other than an apostle to do signs and wonders was Stephen.

Could Stephen do miraculous things before the apostles laid their hands on him? The reader is first introduced to him in Acts 6:5. He is the first of the seven who are listed, and he is described as "a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit." Does that mean he could already do miracles? His being "full of the Holy Spirit" in verse 5 might be the equivalent of being "full of power" in verse 8, but it is not necessarily so because John the Baptizer was full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15), yet John did no miracle (John 10:41). Therefore, Stephen could be described as being full of the Spirit without having done a single miracle. We do know, however, that after the apostles laid their hands on the seven men that Stephen is reported as doing miracles (Acts 6:8). Also, now we have Philip doing them in Samaria. Could there be a connection between the apostles laying their hands on these men and the working of miracles, or is it just a coincidence?

Simon the Sorcerer

Having given a summary of the reception of the gospel in Samaria, Luke now begins to tell the story of one particular man who lived there. Simon had "previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great" (Acts 8:9). Magicians and illusionists have always been able to baffle people with their skills. We know they cannot actually saw a woman in half, walk through walls, or make the Statue of Liberty disappear, but it certainly looks as though they can do all these things. Simon was undoubtedly good at what he did. The one thing that most magicians need, however, is a prop or equipment of some kind. Or, like the Mentalist, they must excel at reading people's expressions.

Whatever he did, Simon was an expert at it because "they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, 'This man is the great power of God'" (v. 10). What a conclusion to draw! No one knows how he would have fared against other sorcerers or on "Palestine's Got Talent," but he had the people of Samaria in his pocket. They absolutely adored and respected him; "they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries for a long time" (v. 11).

But 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. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done (Acts 8:12-13).

This brief passage contains several points worthy of consideration. First, the crowd thought that Simon had the power of God, but when they saw Philip's miracles, they immediately knew the difference. So did Simon. Philip had no props, nor did he exercise any psychology in doing what he did. The true power of God was so evident that it made the pretended power of God look puny by comparison. Everyone enjoys a good trick; how much more impressive are actual deeds!

Second, the purpose for the miracles was entirely different. For Simon, the sorceries that he did had no higher goal than to glorify him. After observing the things that he did, the multitudes concluded that he had the great power of God, and they did whatever he instructed them to do. They listened to him. But Philip did not go to Samaria so that the people would stand in awe of him. He was preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This was a much more meaningful message. It had to do with the sins that people commit and how they can have forgiveness of them. Philip did not call on the people to either exalt or serve him; they needed to pay heed to Jesus and serve Him.

Third, the content of Philip's message is described as: 1) things concerning the kingdom of God; and 2) the name of Jesus Christ. These descriptions are the same thing as what Philip preached to the queen's treasurer from Ethiopia: he "preached Jesus to him" (Acts 8:35). Preaching Jesus includes at least two truths. The first is that He died for our sins, was buried in a tomb, and was raised up the third day (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The second is to convey how to apply this sacrifice to ourselves, and the correct way is for us to die to sin, be buried in baptism, and be raised up from that watery grave a new and reborn individual. Having one's sins cleansed enables the individual to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-5).

But some would say, "Wait a minute! We believe a person is saved by faith only, yet you have included baptism." No, we have not included baptism; the text does. When Philip preached Jesus, it was the treasurer who said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36). If Philip had preached "faith only," the eunuch would never have asked that question—just like in those denominations that preach "faith only" today. People do not ask to be baptized because they are not being taught Jesus and the way to respond to His death. When the men and women of Samaria believed what Philip taught about Jesus, they too were baptized (Acts 8:12). We did not put baptism into God's plan for redeeming man; denominationalists have sought to take it out.

Part of Philip's message concerned the kingdom of God. What did he say concerning it? We have no quotes, but presumably he spoke of the kingdom in prophecy (Isaiah 2:2-3, Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14; 2 Sam. 7:12-16; or other passages), the message that both John and Jesus taught (that the kingdom of heaven was at hand), and then its establishment on the Day of Pentecost. It was the church to which those baptized were added (Acts 2:47). Luke continues to speak of the church in Acts 5:11, and he describes the church as being persecuted (Acts 8:1). Saul was making havoc of the church (Acts 8:3). Yet Paul later writes that Christians have been "translated into the kingdom…" (Col. 1:13). He refers to the church since it is in Christ that "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:14). The church is the kingdom of heaven, and Philip spoke of it—that the Samaritans would be in it when they were baptized.

Fourth, everyone was now listening to Philip and being baptized. Simon had lost his hold over the people. He too listened to Philip. Although we might be suspicious of his obedience, Luke does write that Simon also believed. He was genuinely amazed. He knew how to do sorcery and could claim the power of God, but he knew that Philip possessed the genuine power of God. When he was baptized he continued with Philip. If he could not be the most noteworthy man in Samaria, perhaps he thought he could be friends with (or maybe a co-worker of) the one who now was the most admired man in that region.

Peter and John

"Now when the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them" (Acts 8:14). Jerusalem was not far away, and it probably did not take too long for the apostles to find out what had happened in Samaria. Notice that in this instance Luke describes what had happened as their receiving the Word of God. This is another way of saying they had believed and been baptized. But why was it important to send Peter and John to Samaria? Were they concerned that Philip had not taught them correctly? No. They knew Philip and had confidence in him, which is the reason that they had appointed him as one of the seven. There is no hint of suspicion or jealousy; instead, they wanted to impart something to them. It was not more preaching; Philip had done well in that department. It was not in order to work miracles; Philip had already done that, also.

Their reason for making that journey might have been to welcome them into the kingdom and to give them their fellowship, but verse 15 tells us specifically why they went; they "prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:15). Okay; so now it gets complicated. What is meant by this statement? Some advocate that everyone receives a non-miraculous, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they are baptized; this is their interpretation of Acts 2:38. If they were right, then what Peter and John came to do could not be to impart the Holy Spirit in that sense (since they would have already received Him when they were baptized). Nor can the phrase refer to the Word of God which the Holy Spirit inspires.

A good Bible student is aware that the Scriptures use several literary devices. One is metonymy, in which one thing stands for another. The Holy Spirit might stand for the Word, since He inspires it. He might also stand for a gift that He gives, as in Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13. In Acts 8, it should be obvious that the Holy Spirit represents something else besides Himself personally. "For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16). What strikes the attention is the word fallen. This idea has not been used previously but is used in connection with the Holy Spirit one other time in the Book of Acts (10:44; 11:15). What could this expression mean? It cannot have anything to do with salvation, for they were already saved.

What occurred in Acts 10:44? Peter had begun preaching about Jesus to the Gentiles gathered at the household of Cornelius. He had gotten to the death of Jesus and His resurrection, along with proclaiming that Jesus will be the judge of all mankind and that forgiveness of sins is through His name (Acts 10:39-43) when something most unusual happened. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word" (Acts 10:44). Acts 11:15 echoes this description; this time Peter is recounting what had occurred: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning."

Now we have yet another puzzling statement. What did Peter remember? He remembered something that had happened at the beginning. The beginning of what? He obviously means the beginning of their work after the ascension of Jesus. On Pentecost he preached his first gospel sermon, people were saved (Acts 2:41) and were added to the church (Acts 2:47). What happened on that day that reminded Peter of what occurred at Cornelius' house? Although the term fell was not used in Acts 2, Peter says that what happened there was the same thing that happened at Cornelius'.

What happened on Pentecost was that "there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:3-4). No one laid hands on the apostles; they received this ability directly from heaven. The Holy Spirit gave them this gift. Likewise, at Cornelius' house the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the Word. What was the result? Peter and those with him "were astonished…because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also" (Acts 10:45). How did they know that the gift was poured out (that the Spirit fell upon them)? The next verse answers the question: "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46a).

Peter then asked the question: "Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" He did not say that they were already saved; he said they had received the Holy Spirit as the apostles had. In recounting what happened, Peter added that God had given them "the same gift as He gave us" (Acts 11:17).

So, in Acts 8 the apostles are praying for the Holy Spirit to fall upon these new Christians in Samaria. What are they praying for? The text only says that they received the Holy Spirit. They might have spoken in tongues as the apostles and the household of Cornelius did. Or they might have received some other spiritual gift, such as the ability to prophesy. But whatever it was, Simon was able to observe it. He saw that they had received the Holy Spirit. But there is an additional element present in their receiving the Holy Spirit that was not in evidence on Pentecost or in Acts 10. In order for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit, the apostles had to lay their hands on them. "Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (8:17).