Commentary on Acts 8:13-19

By Bob Myhan

¹³ 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.

Even Simon the magician could see the difference between his ability to amaze and the power to heal and cast out demons exhibited by Philip. Simon was convinced that such power could only have come from God.

Again, Simon had no power to heal or cast out demons. He was a mere pretender, a charlatan, as were Jannes and Jambres who “resisted Moses” “by their secret arts,” until they admitted reluctantly, “This is the finger of God.” (Ex. 7:10-25; 8:1-19; 2 Tim. 3:8) 

Simon “also believed” and “was baptized.” Therefore, according to the promise of Jesus (Mark 16:15-16), he was saved. After he was saved, he “continued with Philip;” that is, he became a true worshiper, worshiping God “in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24) From Acts 2:42, we know that this involved continuing “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” He continued to be “amazed” at the things Philip was able to do by the power of God. Simon had truly been converted.  

¹⁴ Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, ¹⁵ who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. ¹⁶ For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Though the disciples, generally, had scattered, the apostles had remained at Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1-4) We are not told how long Philip had been in Samaria before the apostles heard about his fruitful efforts there. Those in Samaria “had received the word of God,” in that they had believed the facts of the gospel, obeyed the commands of the gospel and then received the promise of the gospel—the forgiveness of their sins. But the Holy Spirit “had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” To be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” then, is the same as being “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) and the same as being baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), else the Great Commission was never carried out by the apostles and other disciples.

It should be noted that Peter had no more authority than the other apostles, as is seen in the fact that the apostles, plural, sent him and John to Samara. It is doubtful whether anyone sends the Pope anywhere.

 That these did not “receive the Holy Spirit” when they were baptized is proof that the Holy Spirit is not automatically received when one is baptized, for “God shows no partiality.” (Acts 10:34)

¹⁷ Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

This is the first of two times the Holy Spirit is said to have been received. In both cases, He is said to have been received by individuals upon whom an apostle’s hands were laid. The other is Acts 19:1-6.

And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Paul asked them “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They said they had not heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul immediately asked about their baptism and discovered that they had not been baptized in accordance with the Great Commission. After he baptized them, he laid hands on them and they, then, received the Holy Spirit when he “came upon them,” and were able to speak in tongues and prophesy.

Did the Samaritans who believed and were baptized receive the Holy Spirit in a miraculous way also? Let us continue to examine the text.

¹⁸ And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, ¹⁹ saying, "Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit."

The reception of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the apostles’ hands was perceived by the sight of Simon. What did he see? Did he see the reception of a non-miraculous, invisible indwelling? Or did he see the reception of miraculous power, such as would be received by the twelve disciples in Ephesus on the occasion described above? If what Simon saw was non-miraculous, why did he want to purchase the power to bestow it? There is no indication that he wanted to buy the power Philip had. Therefore, the power manifested by Peter and John must have been greater than that exhibited by Philip. And why would it be necessary to send Peter and John if Philip could convey to others the power that he had?

Indeed, receiving the Holy Spirit seems to have always been miraculous, unless Acts 2:38 is an exception. Some argue that one receives the Holy Spirit, literally, when baptized. These would maintain, further, that the Samaritans “received the Holy Spirit,” literally and non-miraculously, when they were baptized and received Him figuratively and miraculously when the apostles laid their hands on them.

But, if the Holy Spirit was in them, literally, from the time they were baptized, why did they need to have the apostles’ hands laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit figuratively and manifest this figurative reception via the miraculous spiritual gifts?

(To be continued)

The Authorship of Acts

By Bob Myhan

If one compares the first four verses of Luke with the first three verses of Acts one will see that both Luke and Acts were written by the same author.

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)

The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3)

One might, of course, say this proves that they were written by the same person, but not necessarily by Luke. And this is true. However, if one were to read through the book of Luke one might notice that (after the introduction) it is written entirely in the third person, indicating it was not written by an apostle. We conclude, then, that “Luke” was recorded by one who was given the gift of inspiration by the laying of an apostle’s hands.

Also, after the introduction and continuing through Acts 16:10, the author of Acts writes in the third person, also, suggesting he was not a participant in any of the activities in the first half of the book. However (beginning with Acts 16:11 and continuing through 16:17), he uses the first person plural pronouns, "us" and "we," suggesting he has joined Paul’s band of disciples. He does not use this form again until Acts 20:5, indicating that he had stayed at Philippi through the rest of Paul’s second and the first half of his third missionary journey. From this point he includes himself in almost all of the activities, using "us" and "we" repeatedly, until Acts 21:18, after which “we” and “us” do not appear (except when he is reporting the words of others) until Acts 27:1, probably because Paul was in custody in Caesarea during that time. The author could have been investigating the birth, life and death of Jesus during this period, as well as writing his biography of Christ and perhaps the first twenty-five or twenty-six chapters of Acts. In the last two chapters, he includes himself in the voyage of Paul to Rome and is with him through at least part of his two-year Roman imprisonment. During this imprisonment, Paul wrote four "prison epistles" - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon. In two of these, Paul mentions Luke as being with him in Rome (Col. 4:14; Philemon 23, 24). In his last epistle (2 Timothy), Paul is again in custody at Rome and mentions Luke as the only one with him. (4:11)

There are other clues to Luke’s being the author of Acts. One is the fact that he is obviously a close companion of Paul during his two Roman imprisonments but is not mentioned in any of the epistles Paul wrote during the time the author of Acts seems to have remained at Philippi - 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians and Romans. (Acts 17-19) Titus is another who is never mentioned in Acts. But he was in Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas (Gal. 2:1-5), yet that report (Acts 15:1-35) is told in the third person not the first person.

A second is that the author identifies the rest of Paul’s company by name (20:4), with the possible exception of Titus, who may or may not have still been with Paul at this point.

Another is that many terms are used in the two books that are more likely to be used by a physician, such as Luke (Col. 4:14) than someone of another occupation. The Greek word for physician, “iatros,” means “healer.” It is part of several familiar English medical terms, such as geriatrics and pediatrics. Of course, physicians of the first century were not specialists but simply “healers” (see Luke 4:23). Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, in his Commentary on Luke’s Gospel with an Emphasis on Medical Terms, records nineteen medical terms in the first chapter of Luke alone. &