14
Now
when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God,
they sent Peter and John to them. 15 The two went down and prayed
for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16 (for as yet the
Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus). 17 Then Peter and John laid their hands on them,
and they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14-17 is part of the story of Phillip and Simon
the Magician, which embraces verses 8-25, expands the story to include the
Jerusalem Church. It offers an opportunity to discuss the proper signs of
conversion or salvation. How does conversion happen? At a deeper level, is
conversion even a good word to describe the experience of all Christians
everywhere? Some people might come to Christ and live in the Spirit in far more
subtle fashion than that. In addition, we could consider how the Holy Spirit
came upon these people. Their reception of the Holy Spirit was a blessing or gift that the apostles simply asked for,
and just as simply as God gave it. God is willing to give, but some gifts
require specific petition. Since Jerusalem church sent this delegation,
the Jerusalem church felt responsible.
It would happen again at Antioch in 15:22.
14 Now,
when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God,
they sent Peter and John to them.
Even though Samaria once belonged to the unified nation
of Israel during the reign of King David and his son Solomon, Jews looked upon
this territory located north of Judea with contempt and suspicion for
centuries. This was due in part to the idolatrous rituals initiated by King
Jeroboam (I Kings 12:1–14:16). Then, after approximately 200 years of
polytheism, the oft-repeated prophetic words of judgment regarding the
disobedient 10 northern tribes were finally realized when the king of Assyria
conquered and exiled the people of Israel around 721 B.C. (II Kings 17:1-23).
Following this, the king of Assyria repopulated the land with foreigners who
not only intermarried with the Israelites who were apparently left behind, but
also polluted and corrupted Israel's religion, distancing it from Judaic
religious traditions (II Kings 17:24-41). In sum, due to this fractured
religious history, Judean Jews regarded themselves as the preservers of
authentic Judaism and looked down on their Samaritan neighbors. This disdain
for their religious cousins surfaces in several New Testament texts. For
example, when Jesus heals the 10 lepers, the only one who returns to thank
Jesus is a Samaritan who is labeled a "foreigner" (Luke 17:18).
According to John, Jesus "had to go through Samaria," which suggests
that another option might have been preferred if circumstances would have
allowed it (John 4:4). John also notes, "Jews do not share things in
common with Samaritans" after Jesus had asked a Samaritan woman for a
drink of water (John 4:9). To be sure, we find no explicit statement in the
narrative regarding any suspicion the Judean believers may have harbored toward
their Samaritan brothers and sisters. Still, it is reasonable to think that
some members of the church at Jerusalem are asking, "Is the conversion of
these Samaritans authentic?" Beyond that, the narrative suggests another
query: "Will the Judean church accept the Samaritans, and will they view
them as equal partners in the gospel?" In sum, if these tacit questions do
stand behind the events recorded in verses 14-17, the actions of the Jerusalem
church make sense.
Of all the individuals mentioned in the early chapters
of Acts, these two are the central figures, especially Peter. Consider, for
example, that Peter prompts the nascent community to find a replacement for
Judas (1:15-26). Peter is also the principal speaker on the day of Pentecost
(2:14-40). Shortly thereafter, Peter and John heal a crippled beggar while
entering the temple, and then proclaim Christ's resurrection as a crowd
surrounds them (3:1-26). Their public proclamation of the resurrection of the
dead in Jesus infuriates the religious leaders, particularly the Sadducees,
since they deny the resurrection of the dead. For that reason, they arrest
Peter and John, bring them before the Council, threaten them, and then order
them to stop preaching (4:1-22). Still, these attempts to squelch the apostles
prove ineffective. Even when the religious authorities arrest and flog all of
the apostles, Peter declares that he and his comrades "must obey God rather
than any human authority" (5:1-42).
15 The two went down and prayed
for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16 (for as yet the Spirit had not
come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus). 17 Then Peter and
John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. The
giving of the Holy Spirit as connected with the apostles is a reflection of a
small church. The larger Gentile mission
that Luke will describe, and to which the letters of Paul will testify, would
make this impossible. Thus, this passage includes a definite emphasis on the
role of the Holy Spirit at crucial moments in the book of Acts. Recall, for
example, the Spirit's descent on the apostles on the day of Pentecost (2:1-13).
Later, when Ananias and Sapphira seek to enhance their own notoriety, and to
obtain the community's praise, Peter reveals that they are testing and lying to
the Spirit (5:1-11). Not long after this, the church appoints seven servants
who are "full of the Spirit" to address the Hellenists' complaint
regarding their widows (6:1-6). Moreover, Stephen -- the church's first martyr
-- is a disciple who particularly has the Spirit's power and wisdom (6:5,
8-15). As James D. G. Dunn shows in an important study (Baptism in the Holy
Spirit), there is solid evidence to suggest that the early church held that
there were at least three essential pieces to what he terms the
"conversion-initiation" experience of becoming a follower of Jesus:
confession that Jesus is the Messiah, water baptism and receiving the Spirit.
It seems there was no single order for these experiences (cf. 9:44-48, where
reception of the Spirit is the basis for water baptism), but the absence of any
one of them calls into question whether one was part of the community. With the
Samaritans' reception of the Holy Spirit, there can be no question that the
church had entered a new stage of expansion in fulfillment of Jesus' charge.
Further, the work of the Spirit has a close relation to the work of the Son.
Here, the laying on of hands imparts the Spirit, which we are to understand in
the context of the sending of the Spirit by the Father or the Son.[1]
We should note the close connection of this act of laying on of hands, the
imparting of the Spirit, and baptism. Thus, the passage is consistent with much
of the early Christian testimony of the receiving of the Spirit at baptism.[2]
This link of baptism to reception of the Spirit by the laying on of hands is
one we expect in Acts.[3]
Of course, here is an example of baptism with water that is separate from the
reception of the Spirit, which is the norm for baptism in the New Testament.[4]
We should note as well that baptism in the name of Jesus includes the
Trinitarian formula, for baptism is in the one name, Father, Son, and Spirit.[5]
[1]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume
3, 4.
[2]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume
3, 267.
[3]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume
3, 260.
[4]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume
3, 279.
[5]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology
Volume 1, 301.
you raise good questions but I think you need to go further to either discuss them or give the answers. If there were three steps to conversion then why not now? How do we receive and know who has the spirit? Finally how DOES conversion happen? Can we know who are saved? -Lyn Eastman
ReplyDeleteI agree but this time I raised questions for which I did not have answers.