THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 19, Chapter 8
We have a wide variety of issues that are going to come up today in Acts chapter 8 that I think
you’ll find interesting. Last week we concluded Acts chapter 7 with the stoning death of
Stephen, the first disciple of Christ to die as a martyr. Sadly, like his master Yeshua,
Stephen’s death was at the urging of his own people, the Jews. And as with Yeshua, the
underlying issue that brought-on Stephen’s execution was one of a fierce disagreement
over halakhah; Jewish law. To be clear, the particular halachic issue in question had to do
with Yeshua’s declaration as being the Messiah, something that only a small minority of Jews
at that time accepted. But it also serves to highlight just how sensitive was the issue of Biblical
interpretation, Oral Torah, such that too much disagreement could literally lead to loss of life.
We’ve had some in-depth discussions about the Synagogue, and about Oral Torah also
known as Tradition. And that Oral Torah was but interpretations of the Torah of Moses;
however then, as now, the interpretations as given by revered Rabbis and especially when
eventually written down into the Mishnah and Talmud, are considered as divine as is the
original Torah given on Mt. Sinai. So now let’s learn another term: halakhah. Usually it is said
that this word means Jewish Law; and Jewish Law is referring not to the Bible but rather to
rulings made by Rabbis. However we need to nuance that just a bit so as to properly
understand what is in the minds of the Rabbis and lay Jews when that term is employed.
Halakhah more literally and appropriately means, “The path that one walks”. Certain rulings
and laws define that uniquely Jewish path and set down boundaries. The word halakhah is
derived from the Hebrew root word heh-lamed-kaf, which means to walk, or to travel or to go.
Thus halakhah represents the overall legal code of conduct that Jews are supposed to live by.
If you were to ask a Rabbi where the laws of halakhah come from he would tell you that they
come from three sources: the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah, and long held customs some of
which are so old and obscure that no one really knows when they started or why they were
begun. However, as I have taught you over the last several weeks, from the Jewish
perspective, you cannot stick a sheet of paper in between the Torah of Moses and Oral Torah
(Traditions), because they are seen as essentially one in the same substance. Now
academically (which is how I am speaking at the moment) a Jewish scholar would parse his
words and agree that from a technical viewpoint the Torah of Moses is indeed a different and
older document than the Talmud. And customs aren’t quite the same things as the Torah of
Moses or even the Bible interpretations that have become lawful Traditions. But in practice,
and in weight, the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah and customs are all seen as generally equally
valid and authoritative.
But even more difficult to grasp, especially for gentile Christians and students of the New
Testament, the terms used for these 3 sources of halakhah (the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah,
and customs) are commonly used by Jews interchangeably. And we will find that Paul,
especially, in his epistles will often use terms like law and customs and traditions
1 / 9

interchangeably. Why? Because that was merely the everyday mindset and the common way
of speaking among Jews in New Testament times. Thus depending on his audience and his
purpose, Paul (who was himself a scholar) would use these Jewish terms as commonly
spoken among ordinary Jews in casual conversation, or he might get more technical and
nuanced as he dealt with the deeper matters of Scriptural truth.
So as we go forward just understand that what halakhah means to the Jewish world is the
overall body of laws that governs Jewish life. And these laws are set down almost exclusively
by Rabbis, hence the nickname rabbinical law or Jewish law. Thus when a Jew speaks of
halakhah, rabbinical law or Jewish law, these all mean the same thing. And as we reach the
time of Yeshua, halakhah consisted mostly of the rapidly developing Traditions (Oral Torah) of
the Synagogue leaders. Be aware however that not all Rabbis and Synagogues believed in the
same Bible interpretations; they didn’t all go by some universally accepted halakhah. Part of
the reason that there were so many Synagogues located in Jerusalem is because so many
different Rabbis taught their own interpretations as superior to any other. It is no different than
in Christianity whereby we can all say that we are Christians, yet at the same time we have
several thousand denominations none of which agree with the others on all points of Biblical
interpretation. And the disagreements are often perceived as being strong enough that we
don’t believe we can worship together comfortably. Thus Christianity finds it necessary to
divide ourselves into many denominations and churches. This is essentially what Jewish life
and religion was like at the time of Christ.
One more associated Jewish term and we’ll move on. In Hebrew the word for commandment
is mitzvah (mitzvot is plural). So in the Torah we find that as Moses is receiving God’s
instructions on Mt. Sinai, the rules he is receiving are called mitzvot: commandments. Thus in
halakhah, individual rulings and instructions of the Talmud (the written rulings of the Rabbis)
are also called mitzvot because in Judaism they generally carry the same weight as do the
commandments given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And, it has become so in Judaism and
Christianity that the English words law and commandment have become synonymous and
interchangeable; a law is a commandment and a commandment is a law. So today when a
Jew speaks of mitzvot he’s not so much thinking of Mt. Sinai, rather he’s thinking about the
many rulings and laws of the Rabbis. However just to confuse things a little more, the word
mitzvah can mean something else; it can mean doing a good deed or an act of kindness. I’m
sorry to tell you that even this gets nuanced to another level; but I’m also happy to tell you that
we won’t go there today!
Our little walk down an avenue of everyday basic terms used in Judaism is for one purpose; to
help you understand the substance of Judaism and the Synagogue as it was in Christ’s era
and in the era of the Apostles. These terms and their meanings that have your heads spinning
right now were as well understood for them, as how to turn a water faucet on and off is for us
today. The Jewish people, and the Jewish writers of the New Testament, didn’t have to think
deeply as they used and communicated these terms; the context of the conversation dictated
exactly how to understand their meaning. It was instinctive, automatic, easy. At the same time,
the NT era Jews also weren’t speaking or thinking in terms of explaining Judaism and Messiah
to gentiles whether contemporary to them, or from decades to hundreds of years later. It is our
problem and our task as modern day Believers to dig and research and find out what these
2 / 9

terms meant to those Jews who wrote them. Of course the easy way out (a truly false way) is
to declare a Christian doctrine that says that Scripture is so mystical that whatever it means to
whomever reads it, in whatever culture or language, in whatever period of history we might
live, is what it means; no context is necessary. So we are told not to worry about what the
writers intended. It is no wonder that Christianity has become a disjointed armada of
rudderless ships aimlessly wandering on a stormy sea, having lost its direction, purpose, and
first love. Let’s keep moving forward in the hope that we can help to right that ship and get
back into God’s will for His worshippers.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 8.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 8 all
Luke minces no words about his personal friend Paul. He says in verse 1 that Paul was in full
agreement with the execution of Stephen. Different Bible versions will use different terms to
characterize Stephen’s execution: killing, death, or even murder. The Greek word that is being
translated is anaireses; it means to destroy, kill or murder. This Greek term is meant to denote
an unjustifiable death or the destruction of something that is undesirable. So while Stephen’s
execution was indeed legally sanctioned by the Jewish High Court, none the less Luke makes
it clear that this death was not justifiable; it never should have happened. As we learned in
Acts 7, it took false witnesses making up false accusations to get Stephen condemned. But
even if the charges had been true, to raise his “crime” to the level of blasphemy of God,
thereby giving cause for capital punishment, is itself dishonest and unjustifiable.
Verse 1 continues that the execution of Stephen opened the floodgates of persecution upon
the Believers living in Jerusalem. The result was that most of the Believers fled Jerusalem,
however the 12 disciples remained behind. I want to address the sensitive issue of
characterizing and labeling the believing community in Jerusalem. Almost all Bibles will say
something like: “And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in
Jerusalem”. The word I want to focus on is church. The Greek that is being translated is
ecclesia; it is a rather generic word that means an assembly. It can denote any kind of
assembly. In our case this is, of course, an assembly of believers in Yeshua. So what’s the
problem with using the term “church”? First, I think that David Stern’s translation of
“Messianic community” far more appropriately characterizes the assembly. These were
exclusively Jewish Believers who were being persecuted. Second, the term “church” is
anachronistic; that is, no such thought of the word “church” as referring to a unique religious
system based on Jesus Christ would exist for hundreds of years. So inserting the word church
is to read backward into the holy text something that didn’t exist in that era.
Church was originally a Latin word that meant assembly. So as with the Greek ecclesia it
could apply to most any kind of assembly for any purpose. Later the term “Church” was co-
opted and became by default a term for the members of a new Rome-based, gentile religion
that worshipped Jesus. This targeted use of the term church developed only after gentiles
wrested control of the Yeshua movement away from the Jews, and after it became centered in
Rome, and after it became a thoroughly gentile religious institution. So, to call the initial group
of Jewish Believers in Jerusalem the church is paint an intellectually dishonest picture, and
3 / 9

frankly is an insult to the memory of those first Jews whose persecution for their belief in Christ
we are now reading about. The reality is that this was about one sect of Judaism being
opposed and bullied by other sects of Judaism.
It was important that despite the bulk of the Believers leaving Jerusalem to avoid persecution
(in whatever form it was taking) that we find the 12 disciples remaining there, because it
permitted the core leadership of the Believing community to hang on to its position of authority,
and thus to keep the movement alive and retaining an official direction.
So it is with the backdrop of suspicion, danger and persecution that we find some courageous
Believers nevertheless stepping forward to claim Stephen’s body to give him a proper burial,
and then to go through the customary Jewish mourning rites to honor him. There is little doubt
that the reason the local Believers performed his funeral is because Stephen had no
immediate family show up to do the sad task. Whether they stayed away out of fear, or
because they saw Stephen as a traitor, or there just wasn’t any family nearby we don’t know.
However it is the duty of immediate family to deal with the death of a loved one. Even so,
Jewish tradition is that a corpse has to be buried by sunset; so word couldn’t have yet reached
Stephen’s family up in Samaria, assuming he had family there.
Verse 3 contrasts the caring nature of the 12 disciples to properly bury their brother in the faith,
Stephen, to the cruel Paul who hunted down frightened Believers in their own homes, taking
them into custody. I again remind you; these Believers who were being pursued had committed
no crime. The issue was over halakhah; the Messianic sect followed different Bible
interpretations (ones taught to them by Yeshua) than the other sects of Judaism did. And the
main point of disagreement was the same one that exists to this day: who is the Messiah? The
description of Paul’s actions is further proof that Paul was operating in some kind of an official
capacity for the Sanhedrin. Certainly any arrest would have been by court order; a private
citizen couldn’t just go out and arrest people as they saw fit. And equally as certain the
Romans wouldn’t have had any involvement as this was strictly a Jewish religious matter; no
breach of Roman law had occurred and there was no threat to Roman sovereignty from the
Believers.
Do not get the idea that this persecution of Believers was the first or only violent in-fighting
between factions of Judaism that occurred over matters of halakhah. One of the most
infamous incidents of struggles among Jewish factions occurred between two of the greatest
rabbinical academies in the Holy Land; that of Hillel and the other of Shammai. They were
rivals and each taught a halakhah that differed from the other in some important ways. Just
before the Jewish revolt that led to the Roman destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70
A.D., an intense confrontation arose between adherents to these two schools of Jewish
thought over the matter of a proposal called the Decree of Eighteen Things. This was a
proposal that would establish several important rabbinical rulings that affected some sensitive
issues of halakhah. The disagreement over its contents (and we don’t know what, exactly,
was in that document) was so severe that a number of disciples of the school of Hillel
murdered a significant number of disciples of the school of Shammai in order to stop the
proposal from going to a vote.
4 / 9

As are so many things with God, the result of this persecution of Believers produces the
opposite results from what man intended. Those Believers who were chased out of Jerusalem
didn’t go into hiding; they merely went elsewhere and began to spread the Good News of
Yeshua. Let’s be clear; for the moment, the persecution was limited to Jerusalem. So the
Believers fled to other villages and towns in Judea, Galilee, and even to Samaria as we hear
with the story of the Believer Phillip.
Verse 5 says that Phillip went to a city in Shomron; Shomron being Hebrew for Samaria. This
Phillip is not the Phillip of the original 12 disciples; rather he is the Hellenist Believer Phillip who
was one of the 7 men chosen to deal with the food distribution to the widows. We know this by
deduction since verse 1 explains that the emissaries (meaning the 12 disciples) stayed in
Jerusalem while the others fled. This means that Phillip was a Greek speaker, and Greek was
a language commonly spoken in Samaria. No doubt Phillip knew some Hebrew and Aramaic
as well, so he was a good candidate to go to Samaria and preach the Gospel.
Phillip’s destination also shows that the Believers had adopted their Master Yeshua’s view
that the Samaritans were just as worthy as others to be told of the Good News, despite the fact
that Samaritans were considered unclean and traitors to Judaism. Nevertheless Phillip in the
power of God healed and drove out unclean spirits in Yeshua’s name, and this caused the
Samaritans to listen to what he had to say. Remember: the Samaritans were not considered
Jews. In fact, exactly what they were is not easy for us to define, and neither was it for people
of that era. There was a thread of Jewishness, but an equally large thread of gentile-ness in
Samaria’s population. So in the eyes of Judaism, Samaritans were an unclean mixture, an
ungodly hybrid. They weren’t quite Jews, and they weren’t quite gentiles.
The Samaritans created a huge problem theologically for the Rabbis that would continue on for
centuries, such that the Talmud devotes an entire section on how to deal with them; it is called
Tractate Kutim. Kutim are what the Jews called the Samaritans, and this was because the city
of Kutah was where many foreign immigrants were brought in by the Assyrians to repopulate
the land. What is interesting is that in Tractate Kutim while the Rabbis say that Samaritans are
to be excluded from the Jewish community because “they have become mixed up with the
priests of high places”, that in fact they can re-join the Jewish community if “they have
renounced Mt. Gerizim and acknowledged Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead”. So
what we see is that the issue for the Rabbis about the Samaritans had far less to do with them
being a mixed genealogy of Hebrews and gentiles, but rather that the Samaritans didn’t
practice any kind of accepted, traditional Judaism. They practiced a religion based on their
own version of the Torah of Moses, yet they didn’t believe in the Prophets of Israel. But even
without accepting the Old Testament Prophets, the Samaritans were still expecting a Messiah
largely because of Moses saying that in time a “prophet like me” would arise. I think it a
reasonable assumption that Moses' statement would have been the basis of the approach that
Phillip took in delivering the Good News to the Samaritans since while they revered Moses,
any talk about fulfilling the Prophets of the Bible (something they didn’t accept so they weren’t
familiar with them) would have ended the conversation.
Phillip’s approach to true evangelism is a great application lesson for all modern day Believers
to consider. When we are speaking to non-Believers about Christ it is important that we
5 / 9

approach them on their terms and in the context of what they understand and are capable of
hearing and absorbing. We find Paul doing exactly this on more than one occasion. This is why
the more typical Western Evangelical Christian approach of presenting the Romans Road or
other such Gospel formulas as found on Tracts to explain one’s need for redemption is only
useful if the un-Believer has spent some time in church and is at least a little familiar with the
concepts and the lingo. Non-churched people cannot make heads or tails out of such
information or of the terms we commonly use. And neither of course can Jews nor people of
other religious backgrounds.
As a result of his approach Phillip had marvelous success in Samaria as we’re told in verse 12
that many were immersed, both men and women. Phillip’s success and the amazing signs and
wonders that he performed caught the eye of a well known local magician named Shimon; or
in English, Simon. In fact we are told that Simon became a Believer and that after he was
baptized, he clung closely to Phillip. No doubt to Simon, a practitioner of the magic arts, what
Phillip did made him feel like Phillip was a comrade in the profession and he wanted to learn
from him how to do these signs and miracles that Shimon hadn’t been able to.
It makes sense that Simon would practice his occupation in Samaria where every sort of belief
was tolerated. This man fascinated especially the early Church Fathers, and there arose
among them for centuries great debates over whether Simon was actually saved, or if he was
merely an imposter. Justin Martyr who lived only a couple of generations removed from the
New Testament era wrote about Simon, calling him Simon Magus (Simon the Magician), and
says that Simon was from the Samarian city of Gitta, but later he moved to Rome. In fact, the
Gnostic sect of Christianity claims Simon as a kind of Gnostic Church Father. There is a hint of
Gnosticism where we see in verse 10 that Simon called himself The Great Power of God; this
terminology fits nicely with Gnostic philosophy.
Now things start to get quite theologically dicey for us. And I need you to be open minded
about what I’m about to say to you as the association between salvation, baptism, and the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit varies greatly among Christian denominations and is among the
most sensitive issues that causes much divisiveness in the Church. Verse 14 tells us that the
12 disciples in Jerusalem heard about what was happening in Samaria as a result of Phillip’s
work and so Peter and John went to Samaria to see for themselves; no doubt they were
skeptical considering the frayed Jewish relationship with these unclean half-breeds. But even
more, the passage in verse 15 explains that ONLY when Peter and John came and prayed for
those who had been immersed, did they receive the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. So; are
we to take from this verse that the acts of coming to faith in Christ, and then being immersed in
His Name, are completely separate from the issue of being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which
seems to be the case here? I researched a wide variety of Bible translations and even some
ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts; and they all come out the same. So there is no
error and no disagreement over the plain meaning that these new Samaritan Believers, already
baptized, had not yet received the Holy Spirit and didn’t until Peter and John came to give it to
them.
This issue is important for us so I want to take a moment to re-read this short passage; please
follow along with me in your Bibles.
6 / 9

Acts 8:14-17 CJB
14
When the emissaries in Yerushalayim heard that Shomron had received the Word of
God, they sent them Kefa and Yochanan,
15
who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Ruach HaKodesh.
16
For until then he had not come upon any of them; they had only been immersed into
the name of the Lord Yeshua.
17
Then, as Kefa and Yochanan placed their hands on them, they received the Ruach
HaKodesh.
It was only when Peter and John laid their hands on these already baptized Believers that they
received the Holy Spirit. Notice that there is no suggestion that Phillip’s baptism of them was
inferior or defective or premature (that is, that perhaps they didn’t quite believe just yet). There
is no hint that Peter and John even preached to the Samaritan Believers to clear up any
theological misconceptions that Phillip might have accidentally created. Further we usually find
in the New Testament that once a disciple preached the Good News, and a person came to
faith in Yeshua, if there was water suitable for immersion nearby, baptism was generally
immediate. And, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Messiah is also usually
immediate as evidenced in Acts chapter 10. So it seems reasonable to say that what we see
here as regards the Holy Spirit coming later, and by means of human intervention, is an
exception to the rule (if there even is a rule).
Let me add to this by saying that in Paul’s case of his coming to faith in Yeshua in Acts 9, it
seems that the Holy Spirit fell on him after he believed but BEFORE he was baptized. So what
are we to take from all this? Most Evangelical Christian denominations say that the sequence
is that instantly upon belief, the Holy Spirit indwells and then baptism comes after (sooner or
later), but strictly as symbolic. Most Pentecostal Christian denominations say that, like here in
Acts 8, baptism in water is a separate event from baptism of the Holy Spirit. So a person can
be saved, and immersed in the Name of Yeshua, but still not have the power of the Holy Spirit
in them. I’m not here to dispute any of this except to say that clearly the New Testament
shows that God does NOT seem to have a rigid formula about the sequence of coming to faith,
baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit. We see it happen differently under different
circumstances. And if God doesn’t have a rigid doctrine about the sequence then neither
should we adopt a rigid doctrine about the exact sequence, nor should we question
someone’s faith as insincere or incomplete because they didn’t go through the same
sequence that we did or that our religious leadership says they should.
Since we are temporal creatures (that is we’re earthbound and controlled by time and space),
then we have little choice on earth and in practice but to devise some sequence or another for
ceremonial matters. That is, we have to have some order of doing things or everything is
random and chaotic. Yet we also don’t have to demand that our way is God’s way and that
there is no other way. Thus here at SOAM for instance, we expect a person to come to faith,
and then to approach our Elder to request immersion. The Elder then contacts that person,
7 / 9

asks them to pronounce their faith to him, and discusses the meaning of water immersion with
them. Once these important preliminaries are completed only then will a SOAM pastor
immerse that person in Living Water. While standing in the water the baptismal candidate is to
publically profess his/her trust in Messiah Yeshua to witnesses and to acknowledge their
undying love and allegiance to Him. This sequence is not accomplished in the belief that what
we do is the only possible God-authorized baptism protocol, but rather as a logical, practical
approach that seems to meet all Biblical criteria.
But now a big question looms before us: were the Samaritans really saved? And how about
Simon Magus? After all we see him being strongly rebuked by Peter in the next couple of
verses. Many Christian leaders and commentators insist that what Peter did was to essentially
excommunicate Shimon; so perhaps he was a Believer for a few days, but no longer. Others
say that Simon is so superficial in his belief that he could not possibly have been genuine at
any point.
Verse 18 begins by Simon observing that the Holy Spirit came when Peter and John laid hands
on these Samaritan Believers. Apparently there was something visible and tangible that
occurred that impressed Simon; but we don’t know what it was and I’m not about to
speculate. However afterward Simon gets excited and he wants to have this same spectacular
power that Peter and John possess. After all, he was a revered magician and was used to
wielding supernatural power. So he offered to give money to purchase this ability. Peter bluntly
tells Simon that this is not a power that can be purchased; rather if he ever obtains it, it will
come as a free gift from God. Peter continues that Shimon will have no part in this matter and
that he needs to repent of his wrong attitude and pray for forgiveness.
From this incident there is much doubt in some quarters of Christianity if Simon was actually
ever saved. My view is that from the information we are given, the Samaritans were indeed
saved and so was Shimon saved and remained so even after Peter’s strong rebuke. Verse 13
says straightaway: “Moreover, Simon himself came to believe”. Look; Simon was reacting
according to everything he knew from his past. It takes time to unlearn wrong things, and to
drop bad habits. Simon had no previous training in the Torah, or even in Traditions, like any
ordinary Jew had received because he wasn’t a Jew! Everything was new to him. Only a few
days earlier he was a proud pagan Sorcerer; how could he be expected to understand the finer
points of his faith and of God’s Word so quickly?
As for Simon, nowhere do we see anything but a repentant response from him after Peter
chastised him. No arguing, debating, or denial. And we also never hear of Simon renouncing
his relationship with the Lord. Simon was saved. What may have happened at a later date,
outside of any Biblical information, I can’t say.
But my own personal experience with the Lord has taught me something valuable. Being a
Believer is an ongoing process that involves a never ending renewal of our minds. Paul calls
this process being perfected; not achieving perfection. So don’t be discouraged if you aren’t
moving along in your journey with Christ as quickly or smoothly as you hoped. At the same
time, don’t expect God to do all the work. You must make a sincere effort to learn and mature,
and when you err be open to being chastised by God at times, just like Simon was. None of
8 / 9

this indicates that God has abandoned you nor that you don’t have a relationship with Him.
We should not think this of ourselves, nor should we think it of anyone who insists that they are
worshippers of Christ but sure don’t seem to act like it sometimes.
In today’s world of anything goes, pleasure at any cost, gender confusion, sexual freedom with
a lack of boundaries, insatiable hunger for wealth, self-centeredness and entitlement, and
other non-Biblical lifestyles, we need to expect that new Believers who come from this
background aren’t going to instantly behave in a Godly manner the moment they come to faith
in Messiah. We have an entire world full of Samaritans and Simons. They can only be as
sincere in their new faith as they know how to be. They need training in God’s Word and they
need discipling and encouragement in their everyday lives, and it will likely be needed for years
to come. Perhaps you can be that person who comes alongside to guide and to mentor.
We’ll finish up Acts chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9