Commentary on Acts 8:20-23

By Bob Myhan

²⁰ But Peter said to him, "Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money!

Peter’s response is an example of imprecation, a prayer in which one appeals to God to defeat or punish the sinful. The Old Testament prophets used this type of prayer quite extensively with reference to those who vexed the Israelites from time to time. (As examples, see Ps. 28:3-5; 35:4-8; 59:1-5; 109:1-20; 143:12; 2 Kings 1:1-12; Jer. 15:15; 17:18.) The curses on Mount Ebal (Dt. 11:26-29; 27:11-26) were divine imprecations regarding the very people of God.

In the New Testament, imprecations were made with regard to those who were hindering the cause of truth. (Notice Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17, 18; 4:14; 1 Cor. 16:22.) The Lord spoke a parable in Luke 18:1-8 “that men always ought to pray, and not lose heart.” At the close of the parable Jesus said,

“Shall God not avenge His own elect, who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (verses 7-8)

If this means anything, it means that it is acceptable for the disciple of Christ to pray for the Lord to avenge his enemies. One of John’s visions on Patmos was that of martyred souls asking for vengeance

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. (Rev. 6:9-11)

Some struggle with the rightness of imprecation. However, Jesus said we are to pray for our enemies. (Matt. 5:43-45) What are we to pray? Are we to pray that they will succeed in their attempts to overthrow us as we strive to serve God? May we not pray for them to fail in those attempts? If so, we may imprecate God for their failure. Was Peter praying for Simon to perish? No, Simon would perish, anyway, if he did not repent. He was praying for Simon’s money to perish with him. Just as Peter and John had no silver and gold for the man born lame (Acts 3:1-6), they would accept none in exchange for the power bestowed on them by the Holy Spirit. Nor could they have done so.

Now we see the probable motivation in Simon pretending to have great power. He had a lust for the things that come with the exercise of power. Heretofore, his only power was the power to amaze. He had probably become very affluent through the influence his “power” brought him. Influence is, indeed, powerful. It was through the serpent’s influence that mankind was plunged into sin. Yes, Simon had the power to amaze but he was not a worker of miracles as Philip was much less a conduit of power as were the apostles.

Of course, “the power of God to salvation” is “the gospel of Christ.” (Rom. 1:15-16) But it was necessary that the gospel be confirmed and this required miraculous power which was given to the twelve, initially, and to those on whom they laid hands, secondarily. The exception to this was the falling of the Holy Spirit on those in the home of Cornelius, which we will review at the appropriate place.

Peter continues,

²¹ You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. ²² Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. ²³ For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity."

The “matter” of which Peter speaks would seem to be the power to bestow spiritual gifts, which Simon has just tried to purchase. While the apostles’ hands were the means through which these gifts were given, it was the Holy Spirit who decided who got what gift.

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. (1 Cor. 12:4-11)

Thus, not even the apostles could decide who got which gift. Therefore, even if Simon’s heart was right, he would “have neither part nor portion in this matter.” But, if his heart had been right, he would not have tried to buy the power. It is for this reason Peter mentions only the condition of his heart. It is the only thing Simon can fix. Those who believe in and teach the so-called “sinner’s prayer” often use Simon as an authoritative example. However, Simon was not an alien sinner being taught to pray for forgiveness. Rather, this is the second law of pardon—the conditions of forgiveness for the Lord’s people when they sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)

Simon was bitter, perhaps, over the fact that he had not received one or more spiritual gift, such as other Samaritans had received. It may be that such bitterness led him to covet the greater power of the apostles. He had permitted himself to be bound anew by iniquity.

The Calvinistic idea of “once saved, always saved,” or “once in grace always in grace” will not stand up under scrutiny, if the Bible is the standard. The idea that, when one is saved, he is forgiven of all sins—past, present and future—is spiritually destructive; it affords no incentive to do live right.

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:5-7)

If we are forgiven of future sins why does the blood of Christ continue to cleanse us from sin as “we walk in the light”? To “walk in darkness” and to “have fellowship with Him” are mutually exclusive. This is what provides incentive to “walk in the light.”

(To be continued)

Is Marriage After Divorce Ever Authorized?

By Bob Myhan

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt. 9:3-6 ESV)

The statement of Jesus, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6), is a negative imperative. Di­vorce is absolutely prohibited in that statement. If Jesus had said no more on the subject, divorce for any reason would be wrong. But Jesus did not stop with the statement in verse 6. Notice.

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9 ESV)

Matthew’s account of this incident differs from that of Mark and Luke.

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12)

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

Neither Mark nor Luke recorded the exception clause in the statement of Jesus regarding divorcing one’s wife and marrying another.

The general rule is that, "whoever divorces his wife ... and marries another, commits adultery." Mark and Luke record only the general rule. But there is an exception to the general rule which only Matthew records: "except for sexual immorality." This exception implicitly gives one the right to divorce a sexually immoral spouse. But does it give one the right to “marry another”?

The right to divorce a sexually immoral spouse and the right to marry another person stand or fall together. This does not mean that one is free to divorce for some other reason just so long as he does not marry another. If the divorce was not for the cause of fornication, there was no authority to “divorce” said spouse in the first place, much less "marry another" in the second place. But with the authority to divorce comes the authority to marry another. This is true because, in Jesus’ statement, the end result of “committing adultery,” does not occur unless and until the divorce is followed by a marriage to another. It is a violation of the law of God (and, therefore, a sin) to divorce a spouse who has not been sexually immoral, whether one marries another or not. But to divorce a spouse who has not been sexually immoral does not of itself constitute adultery. The “adultery” of which Jesus speaks is not committed in the act of divorcing one’s spouse but in the marriage to another afterwards, unless the divorce was “for sexual immorality.” &