Recently while teaching from Acts 17 in Bible class, I pointed out that Luke in Acts 17:13 employs a certain writing technique in expressing a particular thought. Usually, the New Testament is quite precise in its wording. However, in the midst of much precision, we find several times in a few passages some designed ambiguity. In Acts we find displayed a certain kind of writing that requires the reader to analyze a passage carefully to distinguish between definite concepts presented that are mixed together in one expression. So the reader must identify the different concepts and then separate them in his own thinking. Otherwise the meaning of the passage will be missed. For the reader to get the meaning necessitates that he come to the realization of this designed ambiguity (admixture of definite concepts) in the one expression. As we consider this writing technique in several verses, we will see that at times it is very simple to understand what the verse is telling us without much mental exertion. But we will finally come to a text where the truthful information is more difficult to get at (and which has troubled some of us Bible students for years).
Let us consider some cases (in order, except for the one that has given us the most difficulty). We begin with two samples that are quite simple in Acts 13:44-46. Paul and Silas are in Antioch of Pisidia. After having taught in the Jewish synagogue, Luke informs us that a week later Paul and Silas are met by “almost the whole city” and that almost the whole city “was gathered together to hear the word of God” (v. 44). Now, the whole city didn’t know whether or not what Paul and Silas were preaching was, in fact, the word of God. However, Luke knows. And by inspiration Luke informs us that what almost the whole city came to hear (without knowing yet what it actually was) was, in fact, the word of God. So the passage is combining two thoughts. First, what Paul and Silas were preaching was the word of God. Second, what almost the whole city came to hear was what they were preaching. So, in verse 44, we find these two concepts presented without differentiation. Now, having preached the word of God to “almost the whole city,” what happens? The Jews rejected the message and blasphemed (v. 45). Then we read, “And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (v. 46). Notice that what they thrust from them was the word of God. Their rejection was actual and intentional. They thrust it from them because they thought it was NOT the word of God! They were rejecting what they didn’t believe to be true. Too, they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life by rejecting the message that, in fact, was the word of God. They did not knowingly judge themselves unworthy. They ignorantly judged themselves to be unworthy. In other words, their self-condemnatory judgment was not intentional, but it was real. So, notice the combination of concepts. First, the Jews intentionally and actually thrust the word of God from them. Second, they did that because they did not believe it to be the word of God. Third, by intentionally rejecting what was, in fact, the word of God, they unintentionally judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. It is not difficult at all to identify and separate the various facts involved in this case.
In Acts 17:10 we find that Paul and Silas come to Beroea. They teach in the Jewish synagogue and find an audience willing to consider what they say. But when unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica learn that Paul and Silas are preaching in Beroea, they come to Beroea and stir up trouble. Notice how Luke presents this to us in Acts 17:13: “But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed at Beroea also, they came thither likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitudes.” Now what do we find? The Jews that have come to Beroea are the unbelieving ones whom Paul faced in Thessalonica (17:5-9). Some Jews did believe and a church was established (17:4; cf. 1 Thess. 1:1). But in Acts 17:13, Luke is not talking about these Christians. He is referring to those Jews in Thessalonica who had just rejected the gospel. Some of these folk came to Beroea to cause problems for Paul and Silas. But notice what Luke says in verse 13. These unbelieving Jews “had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed of Paul at Beroea also….” What is Luke saying? He is not telling us that the unbelievers in Thessalonica have now suddenly become believers. He is saying that they knew Paul was preaching in Beroea what he had been preaching in Thessalonica. And Luke knows that what Paul preached in Thessalonica was, in fact, the word of God. So notice, first, the unbelieving Jews had knowledge that Paul was preaching in Beroea as he had been preaching in Thessalonica. Second, they do not know that what he was preaching was the word of God though Luke claims that they “had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed….” Third, Luke knows that what Paul was preaching was the word of God. So, we find a combination of three concepts expressed as one thought without Luke’s distinguishing between what the Jews believed about the message preached and what Luke believed. But again, in the context, it is very easy to determine these facts.
Consider a third case. In Acts 18:5 Paul, Silas and Timothy are in Corinth. Paul is “testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.” Now in Acts 18:6 Luke writes, “And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook out his raiment and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” What do we find here? First, since they rejected his message they were unintentionally opposing themselves. They did not mean to be doing that, but Paul says that they were, in fact, doing that. They were doing what they did not intend to be doing! Second, they blasphemed (unintentionally, of course) in what they were saying about Jesus. Since they remained ignorant in their unbelief, they intentionally spoke against Jesus and unintentionally blasphemed against God since they were speaking against the Son of God. They certainly were NOT trying to oppose themselves and did not know that they were. They did NOT intend to be blaspheming, but Luke says that they, in fact, were doing so.
Let us now explore a passage of increased difficulty. In Acts 21:4 Paul is at Tyre and Luke is with him. They meet in worship with the disciples. Luke informs us that the disciples tell Paul “through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.” Then Luke tells us that Paul and company continue on their journey (v. 5-6). Where is Paul going? To Jerusalem. Paul goes from Tyre to Ptolemais and then on to Caesarea on his way to Jerusalem. At Caesarea a prophet, Agabus, warns Paul of coming bondage in Jerusalem. Luke says the prediction came from the Holy Spirit (v. 11). Then, those traveling with Paul and some brethren at Caesarea all began trying to persuade Paul not to go to Jerusalem. But we learn in verse 14 that it is the will of the Lord for Paul to go to Jerusalem. So, we now go back to verse 4 where Luke had said that the disciples at Tyre said to Paul “through the Spirit, that he should not go to Jerusalem.” Just what are we to make of this? If, in verse 14, Luke claims that the conclusion reached by the brethren at Caesarea was that the Lord’s will was for Paul to go to Jerusalem, then how are we to take the seeming prohibition from the Holy Spirit in verse 4 that Paul was not to go to Jerusalem? Just here, the scholarly J.W. McGarvey astutely writes, “The knowledge was supernatural; the advice was the result of their own judgment” (A Commentary on Acts of Apostles, p. 255). Otherwise, we have Paul violating divine prohibition and then confronting the fact that his going to Jerusalem was the Lord’s will! McGarvey was exactly right. And his understanding of the passage underscores the point that I am trying to make in this article. In Acts 21:4 Luke combines two thoughts that he himself does not distinguish. He combines them into one expression. What is the one expression? “…and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go to Jerusalem.” Now, taking this passage together with the passage that follows (21:10-14), we have the following facts. First, the Holy Spirit was giving warning that Paul would face bondage in Jerusalem. Second, brethren in Tyre and Agabus at Caesarea both received revelation to this effect. Third, this prophecy was what was given by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, the attempt at Tyre to prevent Paul’s going to Jerusalem was like the attempt at Caesarea. Fifth, the brethren at Caesarea were finally convinced that the will of the Lord was for Paul to go to Jerusalem, and this is the conclusion that had been reached at Tyre, even though Luke did not mention it. Sixth, he simply stated that after the brethren at Tyre learned that Paul would be in danger in Jerusalem, they attempted to prevent his going. This was their own uninspired judgment. When Paul persisted and left Tyre on his way to Jerusalem, the brethren at Tyre evidently concurred that it was the will of the Lord for him to go on to Jerusalem (v. 5-6). So, what was the ambiguity in Luke’s writing in Acts 21:4? He combined the inspired warning from the Holy Spirit (that Paul would be in danger in Jerusalem, cf. 21:11) with the uninspired judgment of the brethren at Tyre that he should not go to Jerusalem.
In Acts 26:10-11 we have a very simple case. Paul is presenting a defense lesson before King Agrippa. He reports to the king that in former days prior to his conversion, he had persecuted Christians. “And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities” (v. 11). Now, what is Luke telling us? He is telling us that Paul at the time that he stood before Agrippa knew that what he had tried to get Christians to do was to “blaspheme.” But, what Luke does not say—and does not need to say—is that at the time Paul was persecuting Christians, he did not realize that it was blasphemy. This is the unstated fact that Luke does not mention. Paul would not have persecuted Christians if he had known that Jesus was God. Paul came to learn that what he was trying earlier to have Christians say about Jesus was, in fact, blasphemy since Jesus, as Paul would learn later, was God (cf. Acts 9:1-9). So, what is the combination of concepts that Luke mixes in Acts 26:11? It is that (1) Paul tried to get Christians to blaspheme, while (2) not knowing that it was blasphemy.
Finally, the most difficult sample of this unique writing style of Luke is found in Acts 8. It is the most complex case, and before going into it in detail, I suggest that the reader consider a passage from the writer, John, in John 5:18, for a similar writer’s viewpoint. In John 5:18 we read, “For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own father, making himself equal with God.” Why does John say that some Jews wanted to kill Jesus? He said it was for two reasons: First, Jesus broke the sabbath, and, second, he made himself equal with God. Now, we know that Jesus claimed to be God. But did Jesus break the sabbath? We know that he did not actually break sabbath law because that would have been sinful, and Jesus knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21). So we are left with the question: In what sense, if any, did he break sabbath law? And the answer is that Jesus broke sabbath law only in the sense of breaking human tradition regarding sabbath law (cf. Matt. 12:1-8; 15:9). So, in John 5:18 the meaning is that Jesus broke what the Jews thought was sabbath law (but which, in fact, was not).
Now, we are ready to explore Acts 8:18. This verse is in the midst of a discussion of a given situation that exists in Samaria. Philip had been preaching in Samaria. Some Samaritans had been convinced by the gospel and Philip had baptized them in water (8:12). Among those who had been baptized was a previous sorcerer named Simon (v. 9-10). Since entering the kingdom entailed both immersion in water and in Spirit (John 3:3-5; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:13), and since these Samaritans had as yet been baptized in water only, and since Peter held the keys to kingdom entry with regard to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 1:8), it was necessary that Peter be present in Samaria for kingdom entry to be completed. So, the apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter along with John to Samaria (v. 14). The water-only baptism experienced by the Samaritans heretofore was a baptism “into the name of the Lord Jesus” only (cf. Acts 19:5). The complete baptism that initiated one into the kingdom was not simply into the name of the Lord Jesus but was “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). So, Peter and John came down so that these disciples in Samaria, who had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus only, could now be immersed into the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit (which was immersion in the person of the Holy Spirit himself [1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Acts 2:33]).
We know from other passages that the Father gave the Holy Spirit to Jesus, and that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to humans by immersing them in Holy Spirit. John the baptizer had promised that those water-baptized disciples of his would later be immersed in Holy Spirit by the One coming after him (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16), and which began to occur on Pentecost (Acts 2:33). The kingdom came in Acts 2 because disciples, having been baptized in water only were now baptized in Holy Spirit, which combination gave them kingdom entry. The church was established in Jerusalem as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:1-4.
Now, in Acts 8:14 Peter and John come to Samaria. The Holy Spirit “was fallen upon none of them” as yet, but these not-yet-Christian disciples had been baptized in water only by Philip. Peter and John laid their hands on each one of the water-only baptized persons (v. 17). Since only Jesus could distribute the Spirit (John 1:33), the question arises as to why Peter and John laid hands on these people. I would suggest that it was for two reasons: first, to identify each one who was to receive the Spirit, and, second, to connect their reception of the Spirit to their reception earlier of the water. It demonstrated that the one baptism by which one entered the kingdom (Eph. 4:5; John 3:3-5) entailed two elements—water and Spirit. These Samaritans had been baptized in water by Philip’s hands. They are now to be baptized in Holy Spirit by Jesus directly from heaven (“for as yet it was fallen upon none of them”), and their kingdom entry completed. The “hands” of the apostles thus were for (1) identification (water-only baptized people have hands laid on them) and (2) association (the Samaritans had not entered the kingdom though by the laying on of Philip’s hands they had been immersed in water). Now they are to enter the kingdom due to the laying on of the hands of either Peter or John. So, the coming of the Spirit is by laying on of hands associated with the previous laying on of Philip’s hands (cf. Acts 19:6 where Paul lays his hands on twelve men to immerse them in water so that they can receive the Holy Spirit). Philip had done in Samaria what Peter had preached on Pentecost: sinners must be immersed in water for remission of sins so that they can then receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38). (Do not get confused over Cornelius, who received the Spirit first and the water second since he was not a sinner [this is discussed at length in other articles].)
After praying to God that these Samaritans would now receive the Holy Spirit (thus completing kingdom entry), we read, “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” This is what happened in Acts 19:6 by means of Paul’s hands. He laid hands on these men in order to immerse them in water, and while under the water they received the Holy Spirit, the proof of which was the empirical verification by tongue speaking and prophesying, which miraculous power was provided by the Holy Spirit now present in each one of them. Note that this case is not like what we find in Acts 8 because Peter did not have to be present for kingdom entry for these Jews in Ephesus. That’s because Peter had been present in Jerusalem in Acts 2 on the day that the Jews first entered the kingdom, which was in harmony with Peter’s holding the keys for Jewish entry (cf. Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 2:1-4, 8).
Now in Samaria we come to Luke’s unique writing technique. In verse 18 we read, “Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.” The question is this. Is Luke telling us what Simon really saw or what Simon only thought he saw?
Remember John 5:18. Did the Jews want to kill Jesus because he actually violated sabbath law or because they thought he violated sabbath law? Remember Acts 17:13. Did the Jews really know that the word of God was being preached in Beroea, or did they only know that the same message was being preached in Beroea that had been earlier preached in Thessalonica (which they thought was NOT the word of God)?
I submit to you that in Acts 8:18 Luke is telling us what Simon thought he saw but which Luke knows he did not see at all. Luke had already told us in verse 16 that the Spirit was coming from above (vertically). Remember, the Greek for “unless one is born again” in John 3:3 can be translated as “unless one is born from above.” The Holy Spirit did not come through anyone’s hands (horizontally), but the Holy Spirit did, in this case, come due to prayer (v. 15). Simon, not being clear on some facts, misjudges the case. Simon assumes that with their hands the apostles are actually distributing the Holy Spirit! Let me say loudly and clearly: No human ever gave the Holy Spirit to anyone. Ever. The laying on of hands never entailed such purpose. Neither Paul nor Ephesian elders nor anyone else ever handed out the Holy Spirit to anyone (2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 4:14). The Holy Spirit himself is the only one who ever gave a miraculous gift to a Christian (1 Cor. 12:11). No apostle (or non-apostle) gave the Holy Spirit or a miraculous spiritual gift. Only Jesus could give the Spirit (Matt.s3:11). Only the Spirit could give a miraculous gift (1 Cor. 12:11). Hands had their purposes, and the early church was taught as foundation doctrine the purposes of “the laying on of hands” (Heb. 6:1-2).
If someone objects and says that I am simply guessing about Luke’s use of any alleged writing technique as applied to Simon, I would reply: That what Simon thought he saw he didn’t see is proven by Peter’s explanation and accusation regarding Simon. In verses 20-21 we see the seriousness of Simon’s mistake. Notice the following facts. First, while Simon attempted to buy the power to bestow the Holy Spirit (that he thought came through hands), Peter says that, actually, what he did amounted to attempting to buy the Holy Spirit himself (v. 20 [“the gift of God” here is the Holy Spirit (v. 18, 20; cf. Acts 2:38; 10:45; 11:17)]. Second, Simon thought the gift of God could be purchased with money (v. 20). Third, Simon had nothing whatever to do with the matter of giving or receiving the Holy Spirit (v. 21). Fourth, his heart was not right before God (v. 21). Fifth, he was in the grip of wickedness (v. 22). Sixth, he needed to repent so that perhaps God would forgive him of the thought of his heart. Seventh, as things stood, Simon was “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity” (v. 23). Even though we have not tried to buy the Holy Spirit with money, most of us in the churches of Christ in my lifetime have followed the absolutely abhorrent view of Simon thinking that apostles could hand out the Holy Spirit. We’ve made the same false assumption as did Simon—that “the gift of God” is the ability to perform miracles. That’s what Simon wanted to be able to give others. What he should have seen is that the gift is the Spirit (Acts 2:38). There is no such thing as the laying-on-of-hands “measure” of the Holy Spirit among mere men (John 3:34).
Now, a final point, which is this: Peter’s accusation that Simon had attempted to buy the Holy Spirit (rather than simply some miraculous power) can only be true if Simon did not actually see what he thought he saw. Let me explain. Look at the following:
1. Apostles’ hands → power to give (i.e. cause) → the Holy Spirit (i.e. effect) → to others
2. Simon wants to buy → power to give (i.e. cause) → the Holy Spirit (i.e. effect) → to others
3. Peter says Simon is asking to buy → the gift of God/Holy Spirit (i.e. effect)
How can Peter’s accusation be true? How is it that Simon had tried to buy the Holy Spirit? The answer is that Simon thought he saw cause and effect. The cause, he thought, was the laying on of hands. The effect he knew was that the Holy Spirit was given. Peter’s accusation is true (that Simon was actually attempting to buy the Holy Spirit) because the cause that Simon thought he saw was not actual. What was actual was the effect (i.e. the gift of God, the Holy Spirit). Simon imagined a cause, and that’s why Luke writes it from the viewpoint of what Simon saw. Peter didn’t see it as Simon saw it. Simon the sorcerer and Peter the apostle cannot both be right.
There are two things in Simon’s mind that are relevant: power to bestow the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit himself (v. 19). But the power to bestow the Holy Spirit was not actually the cause of the coming of the Spirit. That power was NOT in the hands of the apostles! This proves that what Simon thought he saw (v. 18), he didn’t see at all. Thus, again, Luke’s unique writing technique is employed. In explaining Simon’s predicament, Luke shows us several things. First, Simon did see that Peter and John laid hands on people. Second, Peter and John prayed for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Third, though the Spirit was coming from above, Simon “saw that through the laying on the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given.” And, that was a wrong conclusion reached by Simon!
Biblical Notes 