We're going to look briefly at Acts 8 and Acts 19. Obviously Acts 10 is important in this whole funnel-like collection of various ethnic groups to the same point of receiving God's grace and receiving the Spirit of God. Now in chapter 8 we have a very interesting description, namely of the presentation, the evangelization of the Gospel by Philip in Samaria. Now I should really spend half an hour on describing the history of Samaria. I just want to give two little hints. The history of Samaria goes back to the Assyrian exile, 722 BC, and led to a rather mixed group of Jewish Gentile intermarriage that was one means of a superior power to subjugate its people. To draw away gifted people into Assyria, to bring in people that the Assyrians did not consider very significant and to have them intermarry. And that is kind of the sociological composite of what Samaria grew into. We know from Scripture that the Samaritans had strange motions regarding the Gospel, regarding the truth of God, regarding worship. There were superstitions, there was a sense of believing extroverted manifestations of magicians and Simon the Sorcerer, who evidently has a great impact on the Samaritans is one telling example, but it's not unique or exceptional. So there is a whole bag of sociological religious questions associated with the Samaritans and Jesus did not choose by chance to describe the parable, the story of the good Samaritan by using a Samaritan. It was a purposeful, intended example of a representative of a group of people, ethnic group of people that was particularly despised from the perspective of Jews. So again, just like Jesus giving the parable of the Samaritan, now we see that God does not circumvent, God does not avoid, God does not jump over this particular group, there is no discrimination, there is absolute equality in terms of God's love for all men. No discrimination and so the Samaritans who are looked down upon are included here. Now the Gospel is being preached and it says that Philip proclaimed the Gospel and that they paid close attention to what Philip did and also the Samaritans believed. Philip's message and even Simon, the sorcerer himself, acts 3A13, believed and was baptized. So you have a first presentation of the Gospel among the Samaritans and inclusion of them. The strange event that occurs here is that the outpouring of the Spirit apparently is delayed until the apostles from Jerusalem come, lay on hands and the Spirit of God is poured out on them as well. And this is the point at which I want to briefly remain because some churches, particularly of the Pentecostal tradition, have established on this basis, there are some other foundations but this basis, particularly a theology of a second blessing. A theology that there is a distinction between receiving the Holy Spirit on one hand and receiving the power of the Spirit on the other and Acts 8 is often used as a proof text for that distinction. Now there are various interpretations given to Acts 8. One of the interpretations is that is very valid but I do not think it is true that because the Samaritans are rather flighty people that they love to see miracles demonstrated in quickly believe, nearly like they believed Simon so they believed Philip. They followed Simon the sorcerer and now Philip does some interesting things and they follow that, they just moved about by the winds that come that perhaps their faith was not genuine and their conversion was not genuine. There is some merit to thinking that because as the narrative unfolds it is amazing how Simon the sorcerer and the Samaritans are braided in a narrative sequence, something about Simon the sorcerer then something else about the Samaritans. Something more about Simon the sorcerer then a little more about the Samaritans there are in a narrative structure folded together so as to give the impression of, you know, they are really of one sort, I get that argument but I am not convinced that that would be so. If it were so the whole group of the Samaritans are in serious trouble because when Peter comes from Jerusalem and sees Simon making financial offers to get the same kind of power and the same kind of ability that Peter has this is what he says. May your money perish with you because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no part or share in this ministry because your heart is not right before God. Now this is baptized and converted or believing Simon that Peter is speaking to. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart for I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin. Now remember up in verse 13 I just read from verse 22 and 23 but up in Acts a 13 it says Simon himself believed and was baptized. This is a believing baptized person that Peter nearly says go to hell I mean nearly it's tough what Peter has to say to this man who wants to manipulate God's spirit for personal gain. Now better watch out if any of us would be found to seek to manipulate God's spirit for personal gain. So some people argue because this is so clear and Simon is in serious trouble it may have been a very superficial conversion and perhaps the Samaritans participated in that as well. And so it was necessary for the apostles to come up and to instruct the Samaritans in the true faith in Christ and then they received the spirit. It is a possible explanation but I'm not completely convinced by it. Another explanation for this unique and unusual event is the following. The Samaritans are a people who from the Jewish perspective are despised they are a people who is not considered to be part of God's grace. They are excluded that's why the parable of the merciful Samaritan is so moving. Why would God delay the outpouring of the spirit if we do not follow this braided argument but say yes Simon is in trouble no question about it. But the rest of the Samaritans have a sincere faith in Christ and why would there be a delay of the outpouring of the spirit. I would say that in the total development of acts there is a clear commission of the apostles following through with what God is doing following after what God is doing. And to witnessing God's action and for them to authenticate what God is doing by their instruction they have been instructed by Christ to witness to the truth of Christ. And so there must be a converging of the apostolic witness to the truth of Christ and the outpouring of the spirit those two must come together. And so I wonder if it is a sensible explanation for the temporary delay of the outpouring of the spirit in Acts 8 to say this. Philip did preach the gospel but there was the necessity of apostolic authentication for the witness to the church, for the witness to the apostles, and for them to say this is the gospel do you believe this gospel beyond what Philip already did. So there is an apostolic unique commission here and for that to occur for the disciples to arrive in Samarit among the Samaritans there would be a temporary delay of the outpouring of the spirit. So that those things would be assured namely witness to the disciples that God has included the Samaritans. The disciples, the apostles authenticating and saying is this your confession yes it is we extend to you the hand of the right hand of fellowship. We authenticate you have the faith that Jesus taught us that we have been brought to proclaim. So that that would be the explanation of a temporary delay for this outpouring not to establish a norm. But to simply bring them to that same point that has already happened with the disciples in Jerusalem then those who believe. Yes sir. Okay you believe that Philip is an apostle on what basis do you believe that pardon? Yes see if you believed that Philip was an apostle why would it be stated in Acts 814 when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God they sent Peter and John to them. I believe that the Philip that is mentioned here is Philip the evangelist that is mentioned a little earlier in the account of Acts otherwise you would be quite right. And I think also the reference to the scattering of everybody except for the apostles in Jerusalem just prior to this account would probably make it likely that it's Philip the evangelist. Yes see what I would say to your question I'm just going to repeat it why would they be baptized if they had not believed I would say they did believe. The question is only that I have why is the spirit of God not falling on them with the household of Cornelius the spirit of God falls upon the people even before they are baptized. So why is there this delay and I try to explain that by saying there is this convergence necessary between the apostles authenticating and them witnessing that point of inclusion of the Samaritans which is a huge step. It's probably nearly as big as going to the impure Gentiles in chapter 10. How do they know that the Holy Spirit had not fallen on them perhaps we can say because there are no visible signs of the outpouring of the spirit which we have in Acts 10 with Cornelius. We also have that in Acts 19 so there would be some form of discernment that that did not occur. Yes is the apostles coming and laying on of hands is that what I mean by second blessing no not directly simply that the there would be a basis in an Acts 8 for some not for me but for some to differentiate coming to faith on the one hand and receiving the power of the spirit on the other. That there is a temporal difference that if you are a believer you confess Christ you're not complete until you have had a second distinct blessing of the baptism in the power of the Holy Spirit. That's what I'm trying to argue against by saying this is a unique situation and be careful but the laying on of hands would be one way that the spirit of God falls on people but it's not a normative one because in the household of Cornelius Peter simply speaks. He gets interrupted by God's spirit being poured out that's what I mean. Yes do I believe that it was particularly Peter who is uniquely authorized to authenticate because of Matthew 16. I do not think so particularly if you look at the beginning of the book of Acts you see that Peter doesn't speak alone. It arises with the 11 it is nearly like there's this group of witnesses standing silently next to Peter and Peter speaks but there are these other witnesses that bear testimony to that that bear weight give weight to what Peter says so. Peter I believe in the beginning of the book of Acts particularly is the spokesperson just like he is among the disciples when Jesus works with the group of disciples but he is not unique in that sense. But obviously we would have to look at the interpretation of Matthew 16 and that whole question of Peter and the rock but in Acts I see Peter function as a spokesperson so that's not as significant as apostolic witness that is significant. Yes Simon never gets it he's concerned about his own skin Simon is he's not concerned about the truth of the gospel and the glory of God. May that not happen because I'm really looking out for number one still so you're quite right in in the book of Acts we do not know what is happening with Simon the sorcerer. Yes but some people would like to put Simon the sorcerer to close with the other Samaritans and I have a little bit of a question while I did present to you the arguments which are not completely pulled out of thin air there's some merit to that kind of an argumentation. I would say the the apostolic authentication the question is is that unique to this particular section the apostolic authentication I would say is more continuous we find that certainly in Acts 10 Peter the one of the apostles is authenticating the transfer of the gospel to God fearing Gentiles certainly in the beginning parts of the book of Acts and Jerusalem is an apostolic group. We find it here repeated in Acts 8 and we see it in Acts 19 so I would say there is a certain continuity there. Oh the people who went out to preach the gospel which I have said you know they would have gone all over that is certainly not discredited. What I believe is happening here is representative groups major steps are being illustrated of how they come into faith and then the rest of the assumption is apostolic authentication in some way clarity of the gospel in some way receiving of the spirit in some way that's not focused on. What is focused on is these major groups representative groups are being brought in so that Cornelius would stand parts prototo as a representative of the other group of all kinds of people out there who are now brought in. So the apostolic authentication does not have to be repeated with every particular church and every ethnic group. I don't think that's the purpose of Acts it's simply to display in a representative way get guess what the Samaritans are part of the people of God. There are people from the Samaritans joining and coming into the people of God and it's apostolically authenticated that's all you need and then the rest is fair game. Yes yes so it's just this and that's why I believe there's a uniqueness to the book of Acts that simply demonstrates and illustrates God is calling people and and it's not exhaustive what is happening here but it's it's very strong. So that's a demonstration part for the whole yes yes the question is what was the speaking in tongues what did that signify in chapter 10. I do not see any indication after Pentecost that suddenly glossize tongues which is spoken off in Acts 2 changes to ununderstandable language or speaking. So I would say what is begun in Acts 2 is carried through there's a definition of glossize in Acts 2 and that is the elector language. So I would say in Acts 10 there's this same kind of a manifestation and it certainly can be a demonstration of the Gentile people speaking a language that the evangelists that Peter is testified to. I would also say we should not think of it as so cloistered that they would just be in a separate room nobody can listen or hear. If you look at the architecture of households and houses it's a little more open and loose so that people could actually hear their testimony. So yes I think there's a lot of parallelism and connection between Pentecost in Acts 2 and chapter 10 on the I need to look over here a little bit yes. The question is why the delay of the outpouring of the spirit why could it not be that they would receive the spirit of God and then later on the apostles would authenticate. I would question it's very fair the question and I don't have a clear answer I'm just trying to explain the phenomenon here and it makes some sense because of the tender issue of the Samaritans particularly tender issue that there would be a particular effort on the part of God's kindness. Kindness to bring the apostolic witness and the outpouring of the spirit together for the sake of the apostles for the sake of other people who hear about that but your point is well taken. It's not airtight the argumentation here pardon are we still experiencing delay in our society I'm sure there are all kinds of experiences I am very cautious with looking at experiences today and bringing them to identify. So I don't think we should experience that kind of a delay I don't think so I don't think there's a basis for it because I think there's a particular reason here and even in the book of Acts only Acts 19 maybe another example for such a delay and then that's it. I even have my questions about Acts 19 and I have given you an explanation here why I don't think there is such a differentiation between coming to faith in Christ and receiving the spirit of God. One other thing that I'm just remembering and that's a little complicated all references in the book of Acts to the outpouring of the spirit receiving of the spirit baptism in the Holy Spirit being filled in the Holy Spirit. God pouring out his spirit there about seven or eight different verbs used I believe that they're all synonymous describing one thing not different kinds of receiving the spirit of God on the one hand and receiving the power of the spirit on the other. I think when you do a careful analysis of the vocabulary used you will find that there are what we would call synonyms they describe one thing and that is the outpouring of the spirit. Different perspectives outpouring is the perspective of God receiving the spirit is the perspective of man. Yes there are different perspectives but it's one event that is being described and maybe I can just refer you to a book called baptism in the Holy Spirit by J.D.G. Done. That is a very conchanges in detailed exegetical study and there you will find some of those references. Could there be a particular significance for the apostles to lay on hands on the Samaritans to come full circle from Jesus' parable of the merciful Samaritan to actually physically include the Americans. I think there's certainly a possibility there. I would just not try to elevate the laying on of hands as normative but I think it's a very tender type of a transfer that there would be a laying on a hand just like you say upon that which is considered impure. It's a big issue in chapter 10 and 11. If you look at what contortion's Peter goes through to actually enter into the house of the unclean centurion it's amazing how often he defiles himself before he actually preaches the gospel. I mean he's so dirty from Jewish purity laws that he has no hope of getting back out. It's amazing when you look at these stages so yes I think there's significance there. Yes could there be a significance in the fact that the apostles authenticate to emphasize one church rather than different ranking church the Jerusalem church the Samaritan church. I think there is that as a subpoint to the leading point of one gospel one authentic gospel one witness to that truth of that gospel and by necessity that then leads to one church. But it's based on not one value in one structure but one gospel one testimony that is normative for all that is valid for all. And that's a little tough for Jewish ears to hear that and it's very nice for Gentile ears to hear that that there's one one access to God so I would say that. Yes sir okay when the spirit of God came upon people when there was at times only laying on of hands is the speaking in tongues a manifestation. It's amazing that you don't find that very frequently emphasized the speaking in tongues sometimes yes so I'm also a little hesitant on that particular point. I wouldn't even say that that is a recurring necessity except the fact that everybody receives the spirit of God I can go back to that into Acts 2.38 yes yes. Although we do know from other parts of scripture that one way you can tell whether a person has the Holy Spirit is by confessing Jesus Christ's Lord and by believing. So I'm still open on that point. Let me briefly conclude in a few minutes concerning Acts 18 Acts 19 that would be the only other text in the book of Acts where there may be a distinction between believing in Christ and receiving the Spirit of God. I don't think it's as difficult in Acts 19 that there may be a possible distinction which I do not see even in Acts 8 as normatively established. I don't think there is such a distinction in Acts 19 and I have to go a little briefer and quicker here in Acts 19 we read about some disciples isn't it. It says disciples and Acts 19 one following while a Paulus was at Corinth Paul took the road through the interior and arrived in Ephesus there he found some disciples and asked them did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believe. So obviously there's this question of is the work of God complete in your heart in your life they answered no we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. So Paul asked then what baptism did you receive they replied John's baptism. Now we are in Ephesus we are in Asia Minor we are in a setting that is again rather distinct from Samaria rather distinct from certainly Jerusalem. We know in Ephesus there is the well known and famous Artemis temple there is a cult of fertility worship there are all kinds of strange things going on in the religious surrounding of that city. And so there are some people there who have heard of John the Baptist they have heard of his call to repent and to return so there's some movement towards the God of Abraham I second Jacob definitely what you need to be careful about is when you read there were some disciples that necessarily must mean disciples of Christ from this context here perhaps these disciples were disciples of John. So disciples doesn't necessarily have to mean disciples of Jesus Christ they were associated with Christians perhaps only. I think their answer that they received John's baptism makes it clear that far from having been brought in contact with the gospel of Jesus Christ they had some association some exposure to John the Baptist. So what Paul is doing here is bringing them from the place of John's baptism fast forwarding them to the the message of the gospel by saying he told the people to believe in the one coming after him after John the Baptist namely Christ that is in Jesus. On hearing this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and when in the book of Acts it says into the name of it is very clearly a identification with the person of Jesus himself so be baptized in the name of it's not only a reference to the right of water baptism but it is association with Christ himself to be brought into that relationship through the work of God. On hearing this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus when Paul placed his hands on them the Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied they were about 12 men and all. So I do not believe that Acts 19 is as significant of a challenge as Acts 8 with regards to this possible distinction between believing in Christ and receiving the Spirit. I would reject it concerning Acts 8 and I have given you an explanation there. Acts 19 I don't think even posits that challenge because I do think there there is a deficiency of instruction in the basics of the gospel before Peter Paul comes and Paul instructs him in the gospel and then they believe. I think the reference to Apollos and that he was instructed in the ways of the Lord and that he only knew the baptism of John is an important connection however I would still wonder what it really means what where Apollos was. We do know that he needed further instruction and I wonder if the reference here in this context is that he was ardently speaking about the fact that Jesus is the promised Messiah on the base of the Old Testament. Not necessarily believing in the personal work of Christ on his behalf but going through Scripture and saying Psalm 2 refers to the Messiah. Jesus the Messiah Psalm 110 refers to the Messiah Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah being able to go through Scripture but not necessarily having absorbed that himself. So there is something that Aquila and Priscilla have to bring to Apollos. There's some deficiency there that I would wonder what that was. We don't know for sure but I take your point that there is a certain reference there but I still think that it's not absolutely conclusive there on that point. Thank you very much. We are going to move on please look at some of these questions for next week to meditate on that. Thank you for your attention.