Father Joseph Knabenbauer's Commentary on Acts 8:

FATHER JOSEPH KNABENBAUER: COMMENTARY ON ACTS OF APOSTLES 8:4-25

Preaching in Samaria 

Consider, then, how many and how great things are dispensed through the death of Stephen: the disciples are scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, they evangelize the word, preach Christ, perform signs (Chrysostom); see how God turns the hostile plots of Christ’s enemies to a good end (Oecumenius). 

Acts 8:4 Therefore, those who were scattered went about preaching the word (Detmold). Chrysostom rightly notes: the teachers (οἱ διδάσκαλοι) are scattered so that the teaching may be more widely propagated (ὥστε πλείονα γενέσθαι τὴν μαθητείαν); see on Acts 8:1. For it was by the Lord’s providence that the occasion of tribulation became a seedbed for the Gospel (Bede). And they went through not only the regions of Judea and Samaria (v. 1), but some also reached as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to Jews alone (Acts 11:19). “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria” (Acts 1:8). Now is related how the Gospel was propagated in Samaria, and this through the very man whom Luke lists after Stephen among the ministers (Acts 6:5).

Acts 8:5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria (εἰς τὴν πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας). There is no reason to doubt that this city is the city of Samaria itself, which may also perhaps be gathered by comparing verses Acts 8:18 and Acts 8:25. Nevertheless, it is not the city but the region that is meant here; otherwise, according to standard usage, we would read εἰς τὴν πόλιν Σαμάρειαν (cf. 1Acts 1:5; Acts 9:8; the Fathers). Moreover, by that time the city’s name was no longer Samaria, but Sebaste, a name Herod had given to the city, which he had magnificently adorned, in honor of Augustus (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 15.8.5; Jewish War 1.21.2). “Look, the fields are already white for harvest,” Jesus had said when He was in the region of Samaria. Its inhabitants were expecting the Messiah and believed in Jesus as the Savior of the world (John 4:22, 25, 35, 42); thus they were well prepared for the preaching of the Gospel. And Philip preached Christ to them.

Acts 8:6 And the crowds gave heed with one accord to what was said by Philip, attending to the preaching with the utmost harmony of mind, as they heard and saw the signs (ἐν τῷ ἀκούειν etc. = “when they heard…”). The promise of Christ is fulfilled (Mark 16:17).

Acts 8:7 For many of those who had unclean spirits cried out with a loud voice and came out (βοῶντα ἐξῆλθον). In Greek it is clear: it is the spirits (πνεύματα) that are said to come out crying with a loud voice; hence πολλοί (“many”) is placed with an anacoluthon, admittedly somewhat harsh; from which arose the variant reading πολλῶν (“of many… came out”). Otherwise, Bleek corrects the text by inserting a pronoun: πολλοὶ ὄντες ἐχόντων πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων βοῶντα ἐξήρχοντο; in that case, the verb were healed from v. 8 also completes this sentence.

Acts 8:8 And many who were paralyzed or lame were healed.
Acts 8:9 So there was great joy in that city. That these events took place in the principal city of the whole region is made highly probable also by the fact that Simon the Magician was staying there, who surely did not choose just any city for himself, but the foremost one.

Now, with what success Philip preached and how efficacious God’s grace was among the Samaritans is brilliantly illustrated in what follows: those who had been so thoroughly captivated and deceived by the arts of the greatest impostor nevertheless promptly embraced the faith.

Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man named Simon (the relative pronoun “who” is absent in Greek and in the Gigas; if inserted, it creates a rather awkward anacoluthon), who previously had practiced magic in the city (μαγεύων = “practicing magical arts,” as sorcerers [γόητες], then very common throughout the East, were accustomed to use various illusions), and had amazed the people of Samaria (ἐξιστάνων = “astonishing,” “striking with wonder”), claiming to be someone great. And how completely he filled the minds of the credulous with esteem for himself is declared in

Acts 8:10 to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, intending, as in Acts 8:6; by this contrast Luke deliberately highlights both the power of the sorcerer and the greater power of Philip, saying, “This man is that power of God which is called great.” Thus they said that in him appeared that power of God which is simply called “great.” Power of God (δύναμις) is perhaps the name of an angel (cf. Rom 8:38; 1 Pet 3:22; Feit); hence Simon seems to be presented as an excellent angel, whose name is “the great power of God,” or as one in whom the power of God has specially united itself to human nature, so that in him it might be manifested in a great way. However, since ἡ καλουμένη carries a certain strangeness, Klostermann conjectured that μεγάλη should be understood as a Samaritan name, Megalā or Kōglā (“revealer”): that Simon is the revealing power of God (cf. Feit, Wendt, Bleek). Nestle declares this explanation false, noting that καλουμένη is absent in quite a number of manuscripts (l.c., p. 52); see the textual apparatus. 

Justin Martyr, who was himself a Samaritan, testifies that Simon was from Gitta, a village of Samaria (cf. Apology 1.26, 56; Dialogue with Trypho 120; Migne PG 6.368, 413, 756). From this also is explained why the Samaritans attached themselves to him, considering it an honor that one of their fellow citizens was endowed with such power.

Acts 8:11 And they gave heed to him, because for a long time he had driven them mad with his magic arts (ἐξεστακέναι = “had thrown them into astonishment, into stupor”). The more they admired him, the more clearly shines forth the power of the Gospel, the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16).

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip, as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (cf. 3:6; 4:10, 18; Gigas: “preaching the kingdom of God and about the name of Jesus”), they were baptized, both men and women. On the Vulgate’s phrasing in nomine Iesu baptizari (“baptized in the name of Jesus”), see on 2:38.

Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. Whether he truly believed or only in appearance, the Fathers say it is uncertain; they commend attention to Peter’s words in Acts 8:21, 23. Lapide holds that it may be disputed whether he truly believed or merely professed faith externally; “for nothing is said in Luke’s narrative that forces you, having rejected one opinion, to embrace the other”; since Scripture speaks in human terms, Simon may be said to have believed because he outwardly professed belief. The ancients generally speak of him rather severely: thus Eusebius says he hypocritically feigned faith in Christ (Ecclesiastical History 2.1; Migne PG 20.137); Augustine says he was a raven in the Church (Tractates on John 6.18; PL 35.1435); Ambrose: he did not possess a pure conscience of faith (On Penance 2.5; PL 16.903); Jerome says he was indeed baptized with water, but by no means unto salvation (Commentary on Ezekiel 16; PL 25.127). Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.23.1; PG 7.610) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Prooemium to Catecheses, Catechesis 3.7; PG 33.351, 437), among others, think he feigned faith. Whatever the case, he saw clearly from the magnitude of the miracles that in Philip dwelt the true, efficacious power of God: seeing also the signs and great works of power that were done, he was amazed (δυνάμεις μεγάλας, with an allusion to Acts 8:10).

Philip the deacon baptized only; it belonged to the apostles to give the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Isidore, Epiphanius in the Catena).

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, cf. Acts 8:1. Spitta erroneously supposes that this addition places the apostles in Jerusalem in opposition to Philip the apostle in Samaria, and therefore concludes that not Philip the deacon but an apostle preached in Samaria. But Luke is simply reporting what he had already indicated in 8:1. It may also be understood in opposition to those who had remained in Judea or Galilee (Weiss, p. 250). they sent to them Peter and John. “To send someone is not only the prerogative of one who holds authority over him; thus the Jews, says Josephus, sent the high priest Ismael even to Nero in Rome” (Antiquities 20.8.11; the Fathers). Many others argue to the same effect (Salmanticensis, Lapide, Bellarmine, etc.); cf. Josh 22:13–14; Acts 15:22. The Salmanticensis concludes: “All this has been said against heretics who without reason press this passage, who ought not, on account of an ambiguous and equivocal word for ‘sending,’ to overthrow so many and such clear privileges of Peter; for certainties must yield to uncertainties, clear things to ambiguous, realities to words, and the many to the few.”

Why these two were sent is explained in

Acts 8:15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;
Acts 8:16 for he had not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Lord Jesus; cf. Acts 2:38. It is well known that in vulgar Latin in with the ablative is used indiscriminately where the accusative would be expected. Christ’s baptism is the baptism in which the Holy Spirit is given; for He is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 3:11). Hence it is understood that they had not yet received the abundant grace of Confirmation, which grace, more copious in those times, was often manifested externally by charismatic gifts. Hence Chrysostom says: They had received the Spirit of the remission of sins, but not yet the Spirit of signs. 

Acts 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Here you have, besides baptism, another sacramental rite: the external sign, the laying on of hands, with prayer (Acts 8:15), which sign is efficacious of grace. In the same way, the Apostle Paul laid hands on the baptized, and the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:5–6); cf. Eph 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth… were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance (cf. 2 Cor 1:21–22).

That among the Samaritans too the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of hands, with visible and external signs, is clear from

Acts 8:18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 
Acts 8:19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” He rightly understood that this power ought not to be confined to the apostles alone, but that through the apostles it could and ought to be conferred on others as well, and thus continued and preserved in the kingdom of Christ. In this matter Simon shows himself more prudent than some recent non-Catholics who acknowledge Peter as the chief of the apostles, yet refuse to understand that this dignity must remain in the Church and be transmitted to successors. Simon, however, treated this power most unworthily, wishing to procure it for base gain, and at the same time showed how far his mind was from true faith, since he asked that anyone on whom he laid hands should receive the Spirit.

Peter perceived the perversity of his mind; both had been addressed, but Peter, as the first, replies:

Acts 8:20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” For he reveals such a disposition of soul that it is certain he will be swept away to perdition and damnation; to express his horror, Peter also devotes to perdition the very money Simon wished to use for this crime, as if it were wholly wicked and the wage of flagitiousness. For injury is done to God, since Simon supposed that a heavenly gift could be bought and possessed by anyone for money. “Peter said this to Simon not by way of imprecation, but of threat, or as we see similar expressions uttered elsewhere in Scripture, by way of prediction; for he immediately urged him to repent” (Acts 8:22) (the Fathers). Others note that such words are spoken out of zeal for justice (Bede, Lapide).

He shows himself utterly unworthy to be a partaker of such power:

Acts 8:21 You have neither part nor lot in this word, i.e., in this matter which you wish to receive (v. 19), namely, in the reception and conferral of the Spirit. Λόγος is understood as דָּבָר (“thing,” “matter”) (Cajetan, Salmanticensis, Lapide, Bellarmine, the Fathers, Feit); Weiss understands it as the word Simon had just spoken; Bleek explains it as “you have no share in the Gospel.” For your heart is not right before God. For seeing that his magical arts fell far short of the power of the Spirit, he desired to acquire this power so that he might continue his role among the Samaritans with greater success, a role he had hitherto played to their great admiration. Peter teaches him to what he ought to direct his mind, and at the same time shows how he may avoid the threat of Acts 8:20:

Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, (ἀπὸ = “turn away from”), and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. Ἐπίνοια = “design,” “intention.” The addition of εἰ ἄρα (“if perhaps”) shows that repentance is exceedingly difficult for such a man (the Catena), and Ammonius notes that Peter speaks ambiguously to cast him into fear, that he might seek God more earnestly with tears and fervor (the Catena). Athanasius says this phrasing indicates that it is very difficult to heal such a wound, but that hope of healing is not removed (the Catena). Peter doubts whether Simon will truly repent to the degree required for God to forgive. And there is indeed much reason for his hesitant manner of speaking:

Acts 8:23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity (εἰς χολήν… ὄντα = “I see you have fallen into the bond and now remain there; you have reached the bitter gall and are in this perversity of soul”). For gall of bitterness (Deut 29:18; Heb 12:15) is the vicious depravity of a corrupt mind, which is harmful to others as well (the Fathers); σύνδεσμος = “bond,” “fetter,” so firmly is he held and bound by iniquity. Now, he who has so given himself over to depravity and, as it were, immersed himself in it, may well be doubted as to the sincerity of his repentance.

Simon was certainly terrified by the threat of Acts 8:20:

Acts 8:24 And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” Horum (“of these things”) refers to one threat in v. 20, which encompasses many; another is implied in v. 22; perhaps Peter and John threatened him with more. He desires only that penalties be averted; nothing of repentance. Chrysostom notes: Where he ought to have repented from the heart, where he ought to have shed tears, he merely performs this outwardly (ἀφοσιώσει); and Cassiodorus: Struck by such a rebuke, he asked with his lips that prayer be made for him, which he did not have in his heart. That he did not truly repent is abundantly clear from what the ancients relate about this heresiarch; cf. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.23.1; PG 7.670), Justin Martyr (Apology 1.26, 56; Dialogue 120; PG 6.368, 513, 756), Tertullian (On Prescription against Heretics 56; PL 2.61), Gregory the Great (Moralia on Job 5.13; PL 79.610), to say nothing of what is said in the Recognitions (1.72; PG 1.1256ff.) and the Clementine Homilies (PG 2.89ff.). It was once thought that Josephus also mentions Simon Magus (Antiquities 20.7.2), but the most recent editor no longer reads Σίμωνα there, but Ἰάτομον (Iatomus), who is said to be a Jew and a Cypriot by birth, neither of which fits Simon Magus, if Justin is to be believed.

Now, just as the apostles brought the Samaritans a greater grace of the Spirit, so also they confirmed the faith and propagated it among them:

Acts 8:25 Now they, when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem (they lingered longer on the return, going through various regions, hence ὑπέστρεφον), and preached the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.

Two difficulties are found in this narrative by critics. Hilgenfeld indeed claims that what is narrated in Acts 8:9–24 cannot possibly be reconciled with what precedes in Acts 8:5–8; for it is utterly impossible that a people who immediately and unanimously believed the preaching about Jesus should previously have worshipped Simon with the same unanimity as a great power of God; nor can it be conceived that this magician offered no resistance to Philip, but rather attached himself to him and admired his miracles. But the critic overlooks several things. That the Samaritans believed immediately (sofort) is not stated; προσέχον in v. 6 already indicates a longer duration. True and numerous miracles, by which God in His grace opened their minds to the sorcerer’s frauds, exercised their power. Certainly, if anyone denies miracles and thinks nothing of God’s grace and its efficacy, he must deny not only the conversion of the Samaritans, but of all others as well.

Others find a difficulty in the requirement that, besides baptism, the laying on of hands by the apostles is necessary to receive the Holy Spirit; this is also indicated in Acts 19:6; but since this notion is not found elsewhere, critics separate this part from the original source, contending that such an idea was foreign to the apostolic age. But these claims are entirely gratuitous. For the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit can certainly be increased; hence the Holy Spirit can be said to be given again. Not only here, but also in 19:6, mention is made of such an imposition after baptism; in both places the text is entirely intact and cannot be called into question. Only by a preconceived opinion against the Catholic doctrine of Confirmation could anyone be induced to obscure a plain and obvious fact.

Spitta contends that it is not Philip the deacon but Philip the apostle who is meant; he supports this with a completely gratuitous assertion, namely, that in the original source this narrative was placed after the account of Paul’s first stay in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26–30), not after the account of Stephen. But that Philip the deacon is meant is also clearly evident from Acts 21:8, where one of the seven is called “living in Caesarea,” and thus we are referred back to Acts 8:40 and Acts 6:5; nowhere in Acts (except for the name in 1:13) is Philip the apostle mentioned; the apostle is excluded from Acts 8:14–17.

CONTINUE