THE GREAT SIMONI Acts 8:9-24

Last Sunday I made a clear application of the text to the current situation we find ourselves in due to the coronavirus. I am not going to do that today. Nor am I, in this sermon, going to address the fact that today is what is generally called Palm Sunday – the Sunday when the people of Jerusalem gleefully heralded Jesus as the "son of David." Like you I regret that we are not all together this morning. For if we were, I am sure we would be enjoying, right about now, watching the many young children at Burning Hearts come walking up the aisle waving palm branches as they sing. Can you picture that in your mind?

Next Sunday is Easter Sunday, and on that day we will, like today, again be in Acts chapter 8, although on that Sunday the text we will be covering fits really well with the message of Christ's death and resurrection. I'm looking forward to it.

But, for today we are just going to deal with the text…straight on. So, if you have a Bible handy, please turn to Acts chapter 8…

Acts 8:9-24

Long before there was David Blaine, Penn Jillette, David Copperfield or even Harry Houdini there was THE GREAT SIMON. And given that Simon lived in the era when the Italians ruled the world, it would not surprise me one bit if he went by the name THE GREAT SIMONI. Why he was a marvel…he was a wonder…what a show! While growing up, I often heard my Dad repeat a sideshow huckster's invitation to come in and see such marvels. It went like this… "Step right up folks. All it costs you is ten copper pennies, two nickels or one thin dime. She walks, she talks, she crawls on her belly like a reptile."

Well, all you need to do is step right up and you can see for yourself the wonders of THE GREAT SIMONI. He'll marvel you, he'll dazzle you, he'll leave you speechless! Never before has there been a magician of the caliber of This Great Power…the power of God…THE GREAT SIMONI.

And that was Simon's life. 2

He had mastered his craft and refined his art. And he had become a wonder to behold. And all of Samaria, that region of northern Judea, was in his grasp.

And then…and then along came a church deacon, straight out of Jerusalem, a man whose co-worker (named Stephen) had been executed by the city's elite…Philip. No one had ever heard of HIM before. But he too was a man to behold. For unlike The Great Simoni, Philip had a message of salvation to offer to people.

He wasn't a wonder to behold; he was a wonder to hear!

Salvation…peace with God…the forgiveness of sins…reconciliation with our Heavenly Father: that was Philip's message. Simon could impress you for an hour, but Philip had a message that could change you for a lifetime!

And so Philip came preaching and baptizing. And the people believed and were baptized. Simon, hearing the same words of saving grace said, in effect, "I too want that! What must I do to be saved?" And though the text doesn't fill us in on all the details, clearly Simon heard the message of salvation, accepted it and was baptized.

So the Great Simoni became a Christian.

One can't help but wonder how that might have affected his show. If some modern circles of Christianity were able to influence him I'm sure they would have had him now performing his slight of hand tricks using Uno cards instead of regular playing cards. And the lady that he threw the knives at, or the one he would cut in half, well, maybe both were a bit more fully clothed now that he had become a Christian. Or maybe, like the 20th century Christian magician Andre Kole, he figured out a way to present the gospel using some of his tricks…that in the same way he could make the rabbit disappear, he would then say, "Christ can make your sins go away!" Or just like he could make that cup of dark wine turn into crystal clear water, he would say, "Jesus can take your heart of sin and make it white as snow."

And so The Great Simoni became a sideshow for Philip. Simon attracted the crowds and then Philip would preach to them the gospel. And when Simon wasn't attracting the crowds with his magic, Philip was also attracting the 3 crowds with his miracles. Yes, ages before Penn and Teller there was Simon and Philip offering a tag-team most certainly made in heaven.

It was a great setup. And all would have been well. But then Peter and John came to town.

Now we remember Peter and John from way back in chapters 3 and 4 of this book of Acts. Remember? They were the ones who were used by God to see the lame man walk…a man who hadn't walked in 40 years! And then, when that came to be known to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, these were the two who gave their unabashed and bold defense of healing in JESUS' NAME!

And what do we find Peter and John doing in Samaria where Simon and Philip were? Why they are laying their hands on these new Christians and with that having them receive the Holy Spirit.

Now, you talk about a troubling passage. To anyone who loves theology this is a troubling text. For just consider the questions that arise from these few verses. Questions like…

1. How did Simon, or these other people in Samaria, believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit already working in them? Jesus had taught that it was the Holy Spirit's work to convict people of their sin, their need of righteousness and of coming judgment (John 16:8). If it is the Holy Spirit who convicts people of their sin and need to get right with God, then how can someone WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT be convicted, ever believe or ever be saved?

2. Philip was very much aware of the Holy Spirit for as one of the magnificent "Seven" from Acts chapter 6, a requirement of him was that he be "full of the Holy Spirit." So Philip knew of the Holy Spirit. Knowing the difference the Holy Spirit makes in a person's life WHY would he have gone ahead and baptized or authorized others to be baptized who were completely ignorant of the Holy Spirit?

3. Why would an imparting of the Holy Spirit be limited to the laying on of hands by Peter and John? What did they have that Philip didn't have? And since when did it even require a laying on of 4

hands to receive the Holy Spirit? The apostles, in Acts 2 received the Holy Spirit and no one laid hands on them. When we get to Acts chapter 10 we are going to read about how the Gentile, Cornelius, received the Holy Spirit, and there also it mentions NOTHING about any laying on of hands. So what's with the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit?

4. When the apostles were "baptized" with the Holy Spirit (back in Acts chapter 2) they all received the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. Here in Acts 8 these believers received the Holy Spirit and there is no mention of tongues or of anything extraordinary. So how did Peter and John KNOW these believers had received the Holy Spirit?

5. Granted, Simon should not have offered to BUY the ability to impart the Holy Spirit on others, but apart from that, his desire didn't seem so wrong. Who today…which of us…would not want to see those around us have the Holy Spirit come into other people's lives? It seems like a good desire. Right? Yet Peter verbally TEARS INTO HIM with no mercy. I mean he FRIES HIM. Was Simon really that bad a guy? Was Peter's prayer that Simon "perish" fulfilled? Simon, in response to Peter's rebuke, seems pretty repentant (in verse 24), or was he just trying to save his own skin?

So, lots of questions.

Here and there throughout the Bible, we come up with unanswered questions. For example, have you ever wondered what finally happened to Jonah? The book of Jonah ends with Jonah contending with God over God's willingness to forgive the people of Ninevah and not destroy their city. God was showing mercy to the people of Ninevah and Jonah didn't like it. And that is where the story ends. But I wonder, • Did Jonah ever repent of his sin and of his anger towards God? • Did Jonah come around to God's way of thinking? • Did the people of Ninevah find Jonah and thank him? • What happened to Jonah? We don't know

Or how about that passage in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 where Paul writes about the coming "Day of the Lord" and how before that day arrives there 5 will be a rebellion and a revealing of the man of lawlessness. And then Paul writes, in verse 6, "And YOU KNOW what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time." And every Bible reader for the last 2,000 years has been reading that saying, "No, Paul, we don't know what is restraining him or even who he is! Could you maybe have been a bit more explicit?"

Unanswered questions.

So, these verses about Peter and John coming to Samaria, laying hands on believers, and those believers receiving the Holy Spirit…well, those verses are just full of questions…questions for which we have no certain answers.

So instead of giving you my opinion to these questions let us deal, rather, with the main topic of the text, namely, Peter's rebuke of Simon for his attempt to purchase the ability to impart the Holy Spirit.

What we read here is edited, being by definition Luke's account of what took place. And because it is edited it is more than merely possible that a lot more was going on. We are reading the "upshot" of what took place, but maybe…probably even…there was more. And if we had that "more" then maybe Peter's verbal attack on Simon would not seem so extreme.

Does it seem extreme to you? It does to me.

After all, just consider, this is Samaria. This is not the heart of Judaism. The Samaritans were looked DOWN upon by the Jews as being people who were not really up to their level of spirituality. The Samaritans were regarded as spiritually inferior ethnically-mixed half-breeds whose ancestors had sold out to the invading Assyrian and Babylonian armies hundreds of years earlier.

So here, among these people, Philip had preached and then baptized those who had believed. So, by definition, these were ALL just INFANT believers…what we call "baby Christians."

Simon was an INFANT BELIEVER. And you don't treat infant believers the same way you treat people whose whole lives 6

have been steeped in the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Right?

So, yes, to me, Peter comes off as REALLY HARD in how he talks to Simon. But, then again, maybe if we had all been there and saw what else took place it would make more sense and maybe come off as not so hard.

But what is the real thrust of Peter's words? Apart from how hard he comes across, what is the real thrust of his words? It is this: that Simon, in spite of his having believed the good news of Jesus, and having been baptized, and now hanging around with Philip (v.13: "he continued with Philip")…in spite of all that, Simon was still • "not right before God" (v.21) • in need of repentance (v.22), • "in the gall of bitterness" (v.23), and • "in the bond of iniquity" (v.23)

All of this to say that we have here an example of a man – a redeemed man (based upon his acknowledged believing in Christ, being baptized, and as shown by his desiring to be around the godly man, Philip) – yes, a redeemed man but still a man in need of repentance and change.

Evangelicalism is that which Burning Hearts is part of. We are an Evangelical church. And by that I mean we are a church that believes and teaches the "evangel" message – the message of GOOD NEWS, that Christ came into the world to save sinners and that by his death and resurrection he brings salvation and peace with God to all who believe. Thus, while we do not have the word "Evangelical" in our church's name (as do some) we are clearly woven from the same cloth as those that bear that name.

And evangelicalism is a great thing. You can wear the badge "evangelical," I think, with honor.

But evangelicalism also has some underbelly parts that are not so good. And one of those parts is that it has tended, through the years, to equate a person's conversion with their holiness. Thus, while placing a GREAT EMPHASIS upon a person's being converted…of praying the "sinner's prayer"…of being "Born again" (and all of that is good), it has placed SUCH 7 an emphasis upon that that it has, to a great extent, overlooked the need for ongoing change. Let me put this another way. Many churches seemingly place ALL their emphasis upon a person's works, their change, their pursuit of God, and so forth…to the neglect of asking if the person has even ever been born again! This was the issue for Jonathan Edwards when, back in Northampton, Massachusetts, he found himself in hot water with the church's elders for suggesting that if a person could not give a credible confession of having been born again they should not be accepted into church membership, regardless of how nice they may be or what good works they may be showing.

Evangelicalism has been on the other side of this equation: placing a very strong emphasis upon one's being born again, but then, after that, acting as if everything will be fine. In Evangelicalism we have tended to treat believers as if they have a golden ticket that guarantees them entrance into the Kingdom of God and that because they have that ticket, while they may mess up a bit along the way, it's okay, because they have that ticket and, as some would say, "Once saved, always saved." So we treat them as if they are okay.

But here is Peter and he is dealing with an INFANT Christian – just a very new believer who (and I can't understand this and never will) has not even had the Holy Spirit until now – and Peter is calling him out for his need to repent.

And what does that teach us but this one thing… And that is, beyond all the UNANSWERED QUESTIONS that arise from this text, here is ONE THING that is extremely clear, and that is that REPENTANCE IS NOT A ONE-TIME EVENT REPENTANCE IS, RATHER, A WAY OF LIFE (repeat)

The early 18th century English bishop, William Beveridge, put it this way, "I cannot pray but I sin; I cannot hear or preach a sermon but I sin; I cannot give alms or receive the sacrament but I sin; no, I cannot so much as confess my sins but my very 8

confessions are still aggravations of them; my repentance needs to be repented of; my tears want washing; and the very washing of my tears needs still to be washed over again with the blood of my Redeemer."

I like Simon, THE GREAT SIMONI. It is just my opinion but I believe he was a true believer and we will see him in glory.

But Simon received a verbal lashing from Peter and it was all to the point to make it exceedingly clear that just because one says they believe, one has been baptized, or one even hangs around with good and godly people like Philip, this does not mean that everything is fine with one's soul.

And what was true for Simon is true for you and me.

Look deep into your souls, my brothers and sisters. Is there something that you need to repent of today? Some lust? Some greed? Some anger towards God for this lousy coronavirus maybe? Some "gall of bitterness" or "bond of iniquity"? Or how about some hidden sin that no one except for God (or maybe an apostle like Peter) might see?

Then repent! Get right with God today!

Don't rest upon your having prayed the sinner's prayer 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. Repent today! And be right today before Almighty God.