THE GOSPEL   |   QUESTIONS   |   ARTICLES   |   SERMONS   |   SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   ABOUT

biblestudy: Acts (Part Nine)

Acts 7-8 Martyrdom of Stephen; Peter's Encounter with Simon Magus
John W. Ritenbaugh
Given 08-Nov-88; Sermon #BS-AC09; 80 minutes

Description: (show)

---

OK, back to Acts the 7th chapter. I want to go back for a review at least far enough to give you an overview of the speech. I do not know whether to call it a speech or a sermon. To you and me, it might have been a sermon, to them it may have been a speech. Uh. If it was a speech, so be it. But this speech or sermon, whatever it was, played a very significant role in the approach that the church had shortly after that. And, and of course, the reason for that was is because of the persecution that arose. Uh, surrounding this, while the church was scattered and the gospel actually the preaching of the gospel was scattered to a degree that maybe not, would not have occurred for quite a long period of time. So the reason it is in the book of Acts is because it played such a significant role in the spreading of the gospel. And There were 2 themes that run through this. And the one thing is that God has raised up deliverers. Almost repeatedly, we could, we could go as far back as let's just, just say Moses and come right up through uh. The judges. That God raised up to to deliver Israel from time to time on to Samuel and David. And then right on through with all the prophets that God sent that certainly were, at least in some form a deliverer, but Israel repeatedly rejected the deliverers that God sent and turned to their idols, and of course eventually ended up in captivity. The second theme concerned The temple. And that is that though they had first the tabernacle and then the temple, they still fell into idolatry. Here was the place that represented, you might say the very center of the worship of the true God, but it did not keep them from falling into idolatry. Somehow or another, the Jews could not get that through their skull. And, and so, I mean, the fact that the temple could not keep them from falling into idolatry. Now, 3 subthees, I guess you might say that, that actually branch off of these two main themes had to do with What was what were the central pillars of Judaism? Probably from the time that they came back from captivity. They were once they, they were in Babylon, and they undoubtedly heard the preaching of, of Ezekiel there. Maybe from time to time, Daniel spoke to them. I do not know. But they undoubtedly heard the preaching preaching of Ezekiel because he was in captivity with them. He was not in the court like Daniel was. He was with the people in, at least for a while, at least while he was alive, he was in a concentration camp type situation. And it was there that God gave him a lot of visions which in turn were delivered to the people then and there, and of course have come down to us this day. But while they were there, they had a great deal of time to think upon why it was that they were in captivity. OK, when they came back from captivity, under Ezra and Nehemiah they did make a pretty hard. Earnest, zealous effort to try to correct the situation. They did not do it in the right way. They did not do it in the spirit, as we would say, of Christianity. They tried to enforce ideas upon people's minds through a very strict form of obedience. Now out of this arose 3 tenants of their, that became the pillars of their faith, 3 things that were exceedingly important to them, and things that they I guess individually vowed that they would never lose, never lose sight of, always would keep fresh in mind. Number one was the land. You see, the land was their inheritance. They had been kicked out of the land. And they made the resolve that they would never lose the land again. Well, we know that they did. But at least at the time of Jesus, they were still there under the domination of the Russians, but the land meant a very great deal to them. Now, Stephen picked up on this. And it plays a very large part, especially in the beginning of what he had to say to them. Now what he was saying to them at the beginning is, look, Yes, the land is important. It's our land. It was land that was given to Abraham and to his descendants, and we have a right, a privilege from God to live here. He gave it to us, but that's not all there is in a relationship with God. And the attitude toward the land is wrong, and so he approached it by showing that many of the deliverers that God raised up were raised up outside of the land. Now he did this in an effort to show them that though the land was a gift from God, they should not have the attitude toward the land that they did. That was not the big thing. Now we can understand what the big thing is. It's inheritance in the kingdom of God. It's inheritance of the whole earth, and we might even stretch it out and say it's inheritance of everything that God has created because Christ has inherited everything and we are to share with Him. We are fellow heirs with Christ. Now what this means in practical fact is that the people of God, the Israel of God, those who have made a covenant with God, cannot not allow themselves to ever focus in on any piece of territory on earth. They always have to have a pilgrim mentality. Now he uses illustrations. God raised up Moses outside of the land. See Where did Abraham come from? God worked with Abraham beginning in Mesopotamia, see, and then he gave him the man, the land. God sent Jacob out of the land and into Egypt to live. God sent Joseph into Egypt. And so you know through illustrations like that, he began, he should have been able, or they should have been able to see that yes, these things are true. And the land, though it's a good gift from God, it's not all that important to our salvation. I want you to turn to First Peter. First Peter was written, uh. Oh, I think about 62, 63, 64 AD somewhere in that period of time. And Peter mentions the land. Oh, he doesn't mention it directly. But he mentions it in such a way so that you and I can see which is of relative unimportance and what is of greater importance. In First Peter, the first chapter. And in verse 3, he says, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy, has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. To an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you. Now Peter intended that that be considered by Israelites and compared to The receiving of the land as an inheritance. The land fades away. It's not incorruptible. And is it really reserved? Well, God showed by sending them into captivity that he could give it to anybody he wanted to. But what God is going to give you and me is something that cannot be taken away. Therefore, Christians, which is more important? you and me, we might feel that the United States of America is blessed of God, and I believe it is blessed above any nation that's ever lived on the face of the earth, and yet we cannot allow ourselves to slip into the attitude where we find ourselves putting down such roots here that we lose sight of the kingdom of God. You see, this washes over onto a materialistic attitude, a materialistic approach to life. OK, the second subtheme that ran through here had to do with the law. Whenever the Jews Recognized in captivity that they had gone into captivity as a result of the breaking of the commandments of God, specifically, as Ezekiel makes very clear in Ezekiel the 20th chapter, it was the breaking of the Sabbath and idolatry. The Jews resolved. That they were never going to let that happen again. And so what they did was They built a fence around the law. They and they built this fence, not a literal one. They build a fence around it through. Hundreds, thousands. Of regulations that were supposed to guard their behavior. They were refinement upon refinement upon refinement of the keeping of commandments so that every possible they thought every possible breaking of the law could be covered and if they just learn all those multitude of regulations and follow them explicitly, they would never break the law and they would never go into captivity once again. OK, now what developed over the centuries? From this was the idea of justification. By the keeping of law. Justification means to be. Made right It means to conform to a standard. It means to You and me, it would be To be forgiven To be exonerated, to be cleared of guilt. You know they had the idea. This is a simplification, but they had the idea that developed over the years. That if one kept the law, God owed him. Eternal life, forgiveness, or whatever. The general idea was that God held a pair of scales, see, and as long as the good works outweighed the bad works, see the sins, then God owed you something. The scales were tipped in your behavior. OK, along came the Christian church. And because of the teachings of Jesus, because of receiving the spirit of God, because of the things that were in the Old Testament, they saw very clearly. That he was the payment for sin. And that a man could not earn his way into God's forgiveness. That once we have sinned, The scales are always balanced against us. And that it takes a perfect life, followed by a perfect sacrifice that is then freely given by God out of His grace in order to provide justification for you and me. OK, when When these men began to preach that. The Jews interpreted that as a doing away with law. That was not the approach at all. The apostles, Stephen were not preaching the doing away with law, but rather they were relegating it to its proper role in God's plan, that it was never intended to justify anybody. That's impossible, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. This subject is all deserves a whole sermon or two, but nonetheless, Their interpretation of what was being said by the early church was that this was a doing away with law. But actually, so you can read it there very plainly and clearly in the book of Romans, that's not the intention at all. Paul said, God forbid. Never be it so that we do a lot away with law at all. But actually, the law was being put into its proper place. In 2 Corinthians, the 3rd chapter. II Corinthians chapter 3 and in verse 6. The apostle Paul writing about the ministry. That God Who also made us sufficient as ministers of the New Covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. OK, the third factor was the temple. They had almost a superstitious approach to the temple. That somehow if they, if they had the temple there, that it was going to be. A means through which they would be. Saved, protected, delivered. As I looked upon it as being God's dwelling place on earth. But what it did is it constricted their view of God. So here comes the Christian church along telling these people. That God can't be locked into a building. Yeah, you do not put something so awesome, so majestic, so powerful. So intelligent And constrain him inside the four walls of a building. As though he is some kind of a, of a God that they have as their own private reserve that is tucked away into their pocket, as it were, and others have absolutely no access to him. But God is the God of the entire world. He says in Isaiah that heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool. Where is the building that you're going to to build for me? Right in the Old Testament, it's shown there. But they never looked at it in that way. But the Christian church was telling them that they need to expand their ideas about God. And of course, the frightening thing about this to the Jew was, That if what they said is true, Then they were going to lose God as their exclusive property. Because it animated, it implied the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles as well, and that the Gentiles would have access to God. And that was something that was difficult for them. To reconcile to the 1000 or so years of history in which God seemed to be their private. God. Well, that was something that they did not like to think about it, about And of course, the combination of the three. Led to the situation that we see here now in the, at the tail end of the Book of Acts, or book chapter 7 of the Book of Acts. OK, now let's go to verse 49. That's where we left off. However, the Most High does not dwell on temples made with hands. Stephen is the Speaker. As the prophet says, Isaiah 66 this appears in heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool. What house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Hasn't my hand not made all these things? Now that was the conclusion of the formal part of his speech. And what if any thinking person Having a Jewish background at that time would have recognized what, what Stephen was saying by reading between the lines. And that is, Jews, you are about to, to lose your exclusive claim on God. That he can't be contained within the temple. Now in verse 51, Begins very strong. Accusation against those people, a very strong rebuke. It turns from what we might consider to be something that was Merely edifying. Merely a different point of view. to something that was a direct attack. So you stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears. You always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did, so do you. Now in a way, you see, this is the point of the whole sermon. If it can be. Summarized in one verse, this is it. He's been leading up to this point. That they are following the path that was trodden by all the Israelites that preceded them down through the years. And the evidence of that, the proof of that was what they did to Jesus of Nazareth. That here was the greatest of all prophets, the greatest of all deliverers. Here they had him, God incarnate God in the flesh right within touching distance, where all they had to do was reach out either with their hand or with their voice, and they would have had access to God, and they did what they always did to every deliverer. They rejected him. And they not only rejected him, but they put him to death. So verse 52. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the just one of whom you now have become betrayers and murderers. Oh, That's pretty hard. I just want you to hold your finger there. We're just going to review just fairly quickly. Uh, I want you to show you, show you from the very beginnings of Israel's history. That Israel has had this attitude toward God and toward God's servants. And when Paul says in Romans 8 and in verse 7 that the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. He had the history of the entire Bible to prove that by. We can just Go back to Exodus 33. This is one of the earliest occurrences of it. In Exodus 33 and in verse 3. Let's go back to Exodus 32. There is even one earlier. Now right after the, the golden calf, in verse 9, the Lord said to Moses, I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people. Oh he's saying that they will not bow their head. In humility It's as if a teacher is teaching somebody. And, and the student is standing there with his jaw set, with his neck set, and you can tell by the look in his eyes that he is rejecting everything you say. Now if a student is hearing. You know sometimes they will even cock their head. So that they can hear better. The Israelites wouldn't do that. The neck was too stiff, for them to to move it in order to hear better or to bow it in humility and listen in chapter 33. And in verse 3, Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey, for I will not go up in your midst lest I consume you in the way, for you are a stiff-necked people. Verse 5, for the Lord said to Moses, say to the children of Israel, you are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take you off your ornaments that I may know what to do to you in Leviticus, the 26th chapter. And in verse 41, Leviticus 2641. Now this is the blessing and cursing chapter. And in verse 40, he tells Moses that if they confess their iniquity and in the iniquity of their and the iniquity of their fathers with their unfaithfulness in which they have been, they were unfaithful to me. And and that they also have walked contrary to me. That shows their stiff necklace, and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled. Uh, you see, you begin to see there a Bible definition of what it means to be uncircumcised in heart. It means that they aren't humble. And they accept their guilt. I went to that verse because Stephen told them that they were uncircumcised in heart. You know, and Jeremiah 4. Jeremiah the 4th chapter and in the 4th verse. Circumcised, and here we are hundreds of years later, after Moses. About 500 years later, to be exact. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your heart, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my fury come forth like fire and burn so that no one can quench it because of the evil of your doings. Here we are 500 years later, and things haven't changed. In chapter 6 and in verse 10. To whom shall I speak and give warning that they may hear? Indeed, their ear is uncircumcised and they cannot give heed. Behold, the word of the Lord is a reproach to them, and they have no delight in it. Well, that's far enough. I could just go through the entire Bible and we would find that theme running through. And the theme is that they are hard-headed and hard-hearted and stiff-necked. And the evidence is in the way that they have behaved in relation or regard to God. So back to Acts the 7th chapter again. Now it's interesting that Many, many of the prophets undoubtedly did not die. And this verse 52. It seems to indicate That the ones that were killed were the ones who prophesized. Most specifically, you see, of the coming of the Messiah. That's what it says there, which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And which means to be sort of a blanket statement that all the prophets were persecuted, but they killed those who foretold the coming of the just one of whom you now have become betrayers and murderers who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it. But right in the last five verses here from 49 to 53, we have the mention of the temple and the law. One that they did not keep the law and that the other that the temple was not all that important. Now when they heard these things in verse 454, they were cut to the heart and they gnashed at him with their teeth. It's a sign of rage. Now it's very interesting. That when Peter spoke to that group of people back in Acts the 2nd chapter in Jerusalem, They also underwent an emotional change during the course of what he said. Now their emotion built up to repentance. These people though, their emotions built into rage. The one people repented and were baptized, the other peoples anger. Led them to kill, not the flesh. But somebody else. I think it's an interesting example to show that maybe maybe there is not a great deal of difference between The attitudes of the two crowds. Both of them built to a fever pitch in terms of emotion, but the one turned in on themselves and repented. And the others turned out away from them and murdered. The one took the accusation as meaning that they were guilty. See, the other took the accusation. As a, as an incitement to riot. Anger can go either way, it can be turned in on the self and be a motivation for an admission of guilt and lead to repentance. A godly sorrow and repentance. Or one can get to the place where one hates the pointed finger, you know, the one that's coming at you and strikes out, simply because they are telling you that you're wrong. So they gnashed with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven. And saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Well, there are are those who feel that that the fact that that Christ was standing is indicative of his readiness to take action. Or his standing to appeal Stephen's case before God. Either way, It seems to indicate that he was actively involved in what Stephen was doing. He was not just sitting there slumped in a chair, nonchalantly observing what was going on. But he was girded in mine. And intent. On the action that was taking place. Then they cried with a loud voice. And they stopped their ears and ran at him with one accord. Very interesting if you compare that with one of the verses that we read regarding them being uncircumcised in their ear so that they cannot hear. These people actually moved apparently to shut their ears, you know, so that they could not hear. They did not want to hear more about what he said. Now law and order Apparently was completely forgotten. Now there is a possibility. That Luke simply does not include everything that went on. There is a possibility that there was some kind of a trial held. That it was held very rapidly, that was rushed through, and that he was condemned. And from what he said, according to the way that they perceived everything, he could have been condemned in very short order. But from the way that it's written, it appears as though there is no indication of a trial. He was just yanked up, taken outside of the city, and summarily executed. It was totally against the law of God, totally against the laws of Rome, totally against the laws of the Sanhedrin. But again, it's it's just another example of when people's emotions become aroused to the extent where they are so angry, they are seeing blood, just about anything can happen. And God allowed it to happen. He did not stop and intervene. But he allowed him to be put to death. Again, that that is something to consider in relation to our feelings about the difficulties that we go through. And I know that If you're anything like me, You're human. And when you go through a whole series of difficulties that seem to last a long period of time and there doesn't seem to be any let up. We have a very strong tendency to feel put upon. That God is is being unfair. Intellectually, we may be able to say, yeah, God says in his word that that he'll never give us anything that's too great for us, but And see, we are kind of indicating that somehow or another we ought to be excused from this trial, that it's gone on long enough. Well, God has shown very clearly with his own son. He showed it with Stephen. He showed it with James, who's going to be killed by the time we get through the first couple of verses of Acts 12, and he showed it with a multitude of other men and women that he's called and used in the past. That he will allow them to go through extremely painful suffering and even death. Are, are we any better than they? See, we are not. And this is one of the major reasons why the book of Job is in the Bible. I do not think Job's major problem was that he was self-righteous. I think Job's major problem was, he did not understand that God has every right to do with his creation, whatever he pleases to do. And the Job did not understand. That God is so holy. He is so righteous. He is so loving. He can't, it is totally impossible for him to do anything wrong. unloving, uncaring. His every act, his every thought is for that person's well-being. And for him to Mercilessly dangle people and send them through pain is something that is beyond God's thinking. Job did not get it. And we have a hard time getting it. We'll see here with with Steven. one might think. Boy, this is a young man. Got a full life ahead of him. If God had just allowed him to live, he might have been another Peter or another Paul. Look at the courage, look at the faith. Look at how much he could have accomplished. But in God's wisdom, in God's love. He said, Jane or Pete or Steven, this is far enough for you. You, you fulfilled my will for you. You've made it. That's a, that's a a kind of love that we can't. We can't grasp because so frequent that doesn't look like love to us. It looks like something else. But it is love. So at any rate, they took him out. And they stoned him And it says the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. Now there is the first mention. Of Saul, Paul. And I'm certain that that is put in there in order to indicate. his agreement with what was going on. Now how much he had to do with with actually inciting the riot nobody knows. He certainly agreed with what was going on. Was he the one who ordered the witnesses to throw the first stones? I do not know. But he consented to what was going on. Now part of this is put down there. I mean this information regarding Paul is put there in order to begin to build toward. The importance of his conversion. And to show how dramatic. And what impact it had on the church when this man was converted. It also put there to show that God can change anybody's mind. Even the most rabid enemy. You know, God does say in in the book of Proverbs that God can even make our enemies be at peace with us. OK, verse 59, and they called Stephen. And they stone Stephen, pardon me, as he was calling on God, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Let's say And they and then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice. Lord, do not charge them with this sin, and we had, when he said this, he fell asleep. Well, that's pretty clear. That he died. So Stevens' Final words were a A prayer for his persecutors. There is a similarity here between what he did and what what Jesus did. But it's not quite the same. Just a minor difference in a way. But its setting is interesting. The minor difference is that when Jesus did that, He commended his spirit, and he prayed to the Father. But Stephen commended his Spirit and he prayed to the sun. The Lord Jesus is what is implied here from the verse 59, receive my spirit, and that was the one to whom he was praying. OK, now it shows that early, that the church considered the Father and the son on the same level, that they were both God. They knew that it was not something that evolved as a doctrine over a long period of time. But they knew that Jesus Christ was born of God, that he was very God, that he was, you might say, sharing the responsibility of the throne with his father. I think it's also interesting to, to consider that that Steven denounced these people in no uncertain terms in his speech. Now he did that undoubtedly, I am sure, in order to lead them to repentance, in order to help them to see what they were guilty of, and to see that they were anchored in wrong thinking in regard to the inheritance. To the temple and also to the law that all of these things were being seen from the wrong perspective, that the Jews' view of these things was very limited and it was not going to be adequate for continuing to grow in an understanding of God and to go on to the kingdom of God. And so by the time he got to the end of his speech, he was denouncing these people in the strongest terms. Calling them betrayers and murderers and responsible for the death of God incarnate in the flesh. And then he turns right around. And he has A pastor's concern for their well-being. And he seeks From God for their forgiveness. Which shows really where his heart was. He was not angry with them in the sense of Of a scathing condemnation. you know, that they were going straight to hell and that was going to be the end of it. He was concerned about their spiritual well-being. He was concerned about eternity and hoping that they would be turned around from the hard-heartedness that they were continuing to show. Well, If anyone repented as a result of this. The Bible doesn't say What it does say is that Saul was unmoved. Didn't affect him. In a positive way at all. And again, Luke is going to this extent to show you and me and anybody who would read here. It was going to be no easy task to convert this man. It was going to take a miracle to get him turned around. This attack on Stephen signaled a much wider attack on the church. Now it's probably this attack was led by the same group that attacked Stephen. Now let's look at the 1st 3 verses. Now Saul was consenting to his death, and at that time a great persecution arose against the church which is at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles. Now that's kind of interesting. Except the apostles. Now why? You know, that's one of those things that we may never know why? Why was it safe for the apostles in Jerusalem, but it did not seem to be safe. For others. Well, there is a speculation which I will give you. And it seems reasonable to me. And that is that the group of of people who were stirred to action against the church seemed to have been those. From whom? Steven came out of. And from whom Philip came out of. In other words, the Hellenist group. It seems as though the persecution was named mainly. Promoted by the Hellenists and aimed at the Hellenists who had come out of their group. And all the apostles were, well, let's just say, though they were Galileans, they were not Hellenists, they would have been considered Judean Jews. And therefore, Uh, seeming to have a closer affinity with normal Judaism. And so apparently it was safe for them to remain Iran because they were not looked at in the same light as The Hellenists looked at their own who had defected from Hellenism or Hellenistic Judaism. But at any rate, all it did was succeed in spreading the gospel wider than it had been before. Now verse 2 and devout men carried Stephen to his burial and made great lamentation over him. to you and me, I know I read that. I do not know how many times, but when I did a little bit of research. On it, I began to appreciate what these men did. Now I am sure that it was undoubtedly dangerous for them to do what they did. Because they had to then associate themselves. With this man that was considered to be public enemy number one, Stephen. Very similar in a way to what Joseph of Arimathea did. However you know, just my own estimation is that what these men did took a great deal more courage than what Joseph of Arimathea did. Because of the temper of the city, because of the temper of these people. Now, not only that, It was very apparently very. Clearly understood. That there was no lamentation, no mourning permitted for anybody who was guilty of a capital crime and put to death. Now what these men did is that they not only went out and claimed the body, but they openly and publicly lamented. In the city over what had occurred. Now what this amounted to was nothing more than what we would call today a protest march through the city, attracting attention. To their cause. I'll tell you, it took some guts to do that. But I'm sure that's why God mentioned it. If they had just gone out in the dark of night. And very quietly buried the body somewhere where nobody could find it. And I doubt very much whether it would have been in the book. But I think that God respected very much the courage and faith of these men to do what they did. Because they were, in a sense, they were sticking their own necks through the, through the noose as well. I think that out of appreciation for what they did, God intervened and protected their lives. Now as for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison. Well, he did not Have any compunction about Who went to prison, did he? Male or female, mother or grandmother doesn't seem to be any difference. He just hauled them all into uh. Into prison. how extensive this was is not known. How extensive and how long it lasted. Now whether it was a week, whether it was 2 weeks, whether it was a month, nobody knows, uh. Persecutions of this type historically do not last very long. If a government is persecuting, it has a tendency to last a long time. If individuals are persecuting, maybe they have. The connivance of the government. The government looks the other way. Uh, but it is not officially something that is that originates with the government. Those things do not tend to last very long because the people who are doing the persecuting run out of energy and run out of, out of money and whatever it takes to do the persecuting. But It accomplished its mission. It got the Christians scattered, and they began to preach wherever they went. Now verse 4. Therefore, those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word, and then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. This persecution led to the most significant steps forward at this time in the preaching of the gospel. So that's why this speech and the death of Stephen was so important because it got these people out of Jerusalem and they began to preach the gospel in other places. And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits crying with a loud voice came out of, came out of many who were possessed and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. And there was great joy in the city. It almost has the the looks of a mass movement. Now their attention was of course aroused by what they heard and also by what they saw. And as the people responded, They were given confirmation. Through the, the, the miracles that were done. OK, verse 9, but there was a certain man called Simon who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great, to whom they all gave heed from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God, and they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries for a long time. Now this simmon is called Simon Magus In early church writings. Now, There is a great deal to be said about him, even in modern encyclopedias. You can find information about him. Most of the information though comes from 3 writers. The earliest of the three was a man named Justin Marder. Justin Marder died about 165 AD. Now Justin Marder was a Samaritan. He was born in this area of the world that we are talking about now. Justin Marder, uh. He said that his countrymen revered Simon. As the highest God. Now this is something recorded apart from the Bible. Justin Marty was a Christian, quote unquote. I do not know whether he was a real Christian or not. He probably was not, but he is looked upon as one of the Fathers, historians of the early church. Now the second writer is Erinnaeus. He lived just a little bit later than than Justin Martyr. And Irenaeus says that Simon Magus was the Father of Gnosticism. Which means we know, people who are in the know. I've mentioned gnosticism beforeMuch gnosticism. Or not much of Gnostic philosophy remains today in the Roman Catholic Church. OK, now the 3rd writing, nobody knows who the author is. But it was a book called The Acts of Peter. It was written in the 2nd century, which means it was written just about the same time that Justin Marder was writing. Now the acts of Peter clearly identify Simon Magus as traveling from. Samaria and taking up his residence in Rome. Now he traveled with a woman named Helen. Now, Helen, was a former slave. And Simon Magus. Passed her off. As Uh, Incarnate, this is weird. Thought You figure it out. I do not know what it means. See, like, Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He was God in the flesh. Well, she was thought. In the flesh. I do not know what that happens to me, but she was taught in the flesh. She was supposed to be a gnostic power of some kind. Anyway, the acts of Peter reveals. Some interesting things about Uh, Simon Magus. But when he got the wrong, Why he He bedazzled the Romans in much the same way that he did the Samaritans because he had a lot of demonic power and he was convincing them of his Uh, divinity through the signs, through the miracles, through the magic. Simon, the magician, that he was able to do. Now whether what I am about to tell you actually took place, I do not know. But he was supposed to have been able to suspend himself. In air. Just rise up and suspend himself. Whether it was some kind of an illusion, I do not know. He believed that he had a great deal of power. According to the book of Acts, one day he got into a dispute with the apostle Peter. Apparently they were arguing over theological points. And Peter was confounding him on every turn. And so finally, In order to try to do something to gain the favor of the people who are listening to this talk that was going on between the two of them. He was going to convince them by a great miracle that he was right, and if he did this miracle, then It was going to show that God was with him and that God was not with Peter. So he ordered them to bury him alive under a pile of dirt. And the 3 days and 3 nights later, he would rise up out of the pile of dirt. He's still under the pile of dirt. He never made it. So I, I guess he was wrong in his argument, but he must have had a a a quite, quite an ego to think that he could pull off something like that, and that was one trick that that never got by him. But it seems to me I would say fairly reasonable to say. That Simon Magus is probably Uh, if there was one person that we could designate as being kind of the Father of the Catholic Church would be Simon Magus. It is very likely that He was the Peter, which simply could it could mean an opener or an interpreter interpreter of secrets that he was the Peter who was the first Pope and from whom all the others have just followed. OK, in verse 12. But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. And then Simon himself also believed, and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip and was amazed seeing the miracles and the signs that were done. Now undoubtedly, Simon was Observing what was going on. Now he was, I am sure, beginning to get himself into a fairly jealous, envious state of mind. Because the people were paying attention to Phillip rather than to Simon. Because they not only followed him, but they were believing what he was preaching. I, I feel that that Simon Magus undoubtedly felt quite insecure about what was going on. And I think that that begins to show up a little bit later, you know, when he offered the money for the Holy Spirit, that what he was after, you see, was the power to confer the Holy Spirit, and that he recognized that Philip had something that he, Simon, did not have, that there was a power there that was far more extensive than he himself possessed. It was not only a power to do miracles, but to him a power also to affect people's minds in a way that Simon could not. Now, on the other hand, At least to this point, there is nothing to indicate that Simon was not. Impressed, let's say, to the point that he too was believing. Now it begins to seem evident a little bit later on that his belief was not the kind of belief that led to conversion. But he was impressed enough intellectually that he believed that these things that were being done were real. See that he could not refute. And it's very likely that his belief was, was very similar to what occurred with Jesus back here in, in John the 2nd chapter. You do not have to turn there. I'll just, I'll just turn and read it. In John 2 and verse 23, now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover during the feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs, which he did. A very similar occurrence here. But Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew all men. He had no need that anyone should testify of man, for he knew what was in man. Now, Simon back in Acts the 8th chapter here seems to have been undergoing that type of conversion. Now verse 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. Now, we need to ask a question here again because there are some things that, that are not supplied. What motivated them to go down there? Now it could have been That they went down there to observe. The Samaritan response. Because this was something new, because remember the Samaritans were Gentiles. Maybe they were going down there. These are just maybes. Maybe they were going down there to find out. What Philip was doing that caused these people to apparently gladly accept what they were hearing. OK, that's one idea. Maybe they were going down there to test the sincerity of the conversions. That's also a possibility. You know, they were pretty skeptical men. In terms of Their attitude toward the Gentiles. It took an awful lot to convince Peter that God really intended them to go to the Gentiles. He had to be led practically by the nose to Cornelius's house. And then he had to go back to Jerusalem. With an argument to plead their case. See, once he was convinced. So you see something new is being forced on the church, and this is what I'm trying to get at. The conversion or let's say the going of the church to the Gentiles was not something that the church thought up. It was something that was forced on them by God. So it's entirely possible that they went down there to Samaria filled with skeptics, skepticism because surely no gentile could understand this kind of approach, so they wanted to, to test the sincerity of their convictions. OK, a third reason was. Perhaps to lay hands on them because Philip could not. ordained as a deacon. Now then again, perhaps it was all 3. I just wanted to see what was going on. They wanted to test the sincerity of the conversions and also because they were needed to lay hands on the people for the receiving of God's Holy Spirit. OK, verse 15. Who when they had come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. And as yet none of them, and as yet he had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now one commentary that I did some research in. Call these 3 verses the most remarkable ones in the book of Acts. Just their opinion, of course. But It is interesting. And the reason it's interesting to them. is because of the laying on of hands. It's not only interesting just because of the laying on of hands. It's because the Book of Acts does not show any consistency at all in when the Holy Spirit is received by a person. Now I'll show you that in case you Care to to do a little bit more thinking about it. In Acts 2:38, And Peter said to them, repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now there, God doesn't mention the laying on of hands at all. If we would take that verse pretty much by itself, we would be led to the conclusion that the laying on of hands was not even necessary. That all a person needed was to be baptized. And then the person would receive the Holy Spirit. Now, if we go a little bit further back in the book of Acts. In chapter 19, And we will not go through the whole threat. Well, maybe we better he, Paul was in Ephesus, and then in verse 2, he said to them, did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And 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? And they said into John's baptism. Now this confuses the people who write the commentaries because there they see now people of sincere conviction who were baptized, just like the people in Acts 2 and verse 38, and yet they did not receive the Holy Spirit. They did not even know that such a thing existed. And then Paul laid hands on them, verse 6. And the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues, and they prophesized. Well, back in chapter 10. And this time in verse 44. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God, and then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized to have received the Holy Spirit just as we, and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. And then they asked him to stay a few days. Now here we have the giving of the Holy Spirit before the people are even baptized. See, there is no consistency. And so they come to the conclusion. That to them anyway, that it is clear that the reception of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily tied to the moment of baptism. Oh, that's basically a correct answer. Because First of all, we do have to consider from the examples that are given. God shows very clearly that he is not bound. By any ritual that even he has imposed on his church. By the ritual I mean is the following of the normal order of repentance and belief in the gospel, then baptism, then the laying on of hands and the receiving of God's Holy Spirit. You see that is the normal course of events. But if God is leading his church into a new area of thought, of understanding, or if God is going to give some understanding of something that they previously did not understand, then in order to make sure that we get the point, he is not bound to follow the normal course of events. Now that's what he did. Just because it does not say in Acts 238 does not mean that they did not lay hands on them. And looking back on it from the perspective of the end of the book of Acts, I would have to say that those men laid hands on those people on at the end of Acts 2:38, even though it is not mentioned. OK, when God then led Peter to go to Cornelius. Peter was a tough man to, to convince. That God intended that the gospel be preached to Gentiles and that they were going to be converted and that they were going to be a part of the church and a part of His kingdom. In order to convince Peter, God gave His Holy Spirit before baptism, so Peter would get the point. Aha. I've seen it with my own eyes and ears. God does want us to preach to the Gentiles. You see a new area of thought. OK, in Acts 19. Something apparently that had not been addressed before. Was John the Baptist baptisms. Valid for the receiving of God's Holy Spirit. The answer is no. Even a baptism from one as great as John the Baptist was not valid. The person had to be rebaptized, and Paul gives the answer why. They had to be rebaptized in the name. Of Jesus Christ and then have hands laid on them and then they would receive the Holy Spirit if indeed they were repentant and believe the gospel of the kingdom of God. So God is not bound to follow a ritual strictly. And it may very well be that we are going to find that there are people perhaps out in the middle of China somewhere. That God has called and there is no minister around. They've been able to see some things and so they get baptized or get somebody to baptize them or something in the right way, but nobody has the authority to lay hands on them. If God has called this person, is he going to withhold his spirit? I think not. I think that's made very clear in the Bible. But in such a case, that he will not withhold his spirit from those people, he will give his spirit and then if he feels it's necessary later on when they come in contact with the minister that person will lay hands on them. As a formality and also to teach them maybe some things about the government of God. OK, back to Acts, the 8th chapter. Verse 18. 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 this power also that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit. OK, now, It is interesting to note that what he wanted was the ability or the power. To bestow power to others. Now what is focused on here by, by Luke as he is writing. is his sinful desire to have spiritual power for the wrong reason. Now what God is driving at for your benefit and my benefit is this. Having the spirit of God. It is a very solemn responsibility. Especially If authority over others is involved. The possessor of God's spirit always has to be aware of the temptation to domineer over those whose spiritual welfare. Uh, for which whose spiritual welfare he is responsible. Now for a lay member of the church, you may feel as though you do not have responsibility for the spiritual welfare of anybody else. Oh yes, you do. There is a responsibility for the spiritual welfare of those within your own family. Not only that, God has called you as a witness. You are my witnesses, it says very plainly, and therefore, there is a measure of responsibility for the spiritual welfare of those who are not converted. OK, now how do you use the spirit of God in relation to these people? Now it says very interestingly to me in I Corinthians 8 and in verse 1, that knowledge puffs up. How is it possible for us to have a self-righteous attitude regarding the things that we know? Certainly it is. Is it possible for us to abuse our understanding, our knowledge, our insight into prophecy? And to use that in a in a way toward others that is not good, of course it is. Now to the minister or to the deacon. It's taken a step further. Back in I Peter 5. There is a warning to the ministry. And in verse one it says the elders who are among you I exhort, I, who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed shepherd the flock of God which is among you serving as overseers not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly, nor as being Lords over those entrusted to you but being examples to the flock. And now that was what was involved here. Simon wanted the power to pull other people's strings. It's the way that we would say it today. Now he wanted the power to pull other people's strings. For his own ends. He totally misunderstood the nature of God's spirit, which is to serve. Matthew 20:25 makes that very clear that Jesus said anybody who is going to be a minister is going to be a servant. It's not going to be like the Gentiles. Simon was a Gentile. Simon understood the way Gentiles rule. Where those who have authority are looked upon as benefactors. Well apparently Philip could not perceive. Uh, you know, the attitude. It was in Simon But Peter could And he saw that the attitude was not good. Now in verse 20 when Peter said to him, Your money perish with you because you thought. That the gift of God could be purchased with money. I'll tell you, they have really smoothed that thing out. Because what Peter said to Simon was to hell with you and your money. It's pretty blunt. That's literally what it says in the Greek. It's a curse Consigning Simon. And his money to destruction. The very thought of trying to obtain God's spirit by the purchasing of it, betrays a total misunderstanding of God's nature. Uh, Israel did the same things. You can look back in the Psalms, Psalm 78 was one place that I wrote down, Psalm 78 verses 36 and 37. They had the same kind of approach toward God. But back to Acts 8 here. As you have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God, repent therefore of this your wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you, for I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Now there is a possibility of misunderstanding that last thing about poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Back in Deuteronomy, the 29th chapter. Deuteronomy 29. And in verse 18, So there may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of those nations, and there may not be among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood. OK, now, this was the principle that Peter was quoting from. He is not saying. That Simon was bitter. Now if he had said that, it would mean that that was the kind of attitude that he was in at the time that he asked. Now that is not what the Greek language here indicates. Rather, he was probably in a beseeching attitude. He was not bitter about it. He was not angry or upset. He was appealing for something to these men who had something that he would, he wanted, and he was beseeching them for the power to confer that power upon others. Now there is another place that you can go to Lamentations 3 and verses 15 and 19. Now what Peter is saying is that Simon's desire, his wanting to purchase God's spirit is going to cause a bitter judgment for himself. See, that was going to be the effect. Peter was telling him the effect of what you are asking for is going to be a bitter judgment. It would be the result. Now you see, that's what it's saying back here in Deuteronomy, a root bearing bitterness. It's a root that will produce bitterness. So he may have been, appeared to be very sincere at the moment. But the later events in his life showed that Peter correctly discerned. The attitude that he was in, that it was a very selfish and greedy attitude because his sincere verse 24, Simon answered and said, pray to the Lord for me that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me. Now he may have been sincere at the moment. But subsequent events showed that he was not really repentant because he became a very hard and bitter opponent of the true churchone more thing before we leave here tonight, and that is That whose sin was worse. Ananiasis and Sahara. Or Simon Magus. It's interesting to notice the reaction that God had. I do not think either one of them's sin was worse than the other. That Ananias and Saira should have known better. Simon was at least unconverted. Not only that, It was very important that God make a witness to the church very early. That he is in dead earnest. And that he will not budge one inch. With his holy law. He is very concerned. About deceit and malice. And hypocrisy. And that it would mislead, you know, great numbers of people thinking. That God did not care. So he made a witness very early, and it was important that he do so to the members of church. It was Simon Magus, it did not matter so much. Because the man was unconverted. And perhaps maybe we will have an opportunity later on in the resurrection of the dead.

JWR/aws/drm

 

 

Sermon Topics

False Gospels

Jesus Christ's Return

Life after Death

Repentance

Resurrection

The Gospel

The Kingdom of God