The Spirit Waits (AI generated image)
This is Part 4 in a series about the timing and precedent of receiving the Holy Spirit.
In Part 1, we saw that Jesus was first baptized, and then he received the Holy Spirit. In Part 2, we saw that the prescribed order of “first baptism, and then the Holy Spirit” for new covenant believers finds its precedent in Jesus’ baptism and subsequent reception of the Holy Spirit. Part 3 examined the Holy Spirit’s role in the salvation process.
And now, Part 4 examines the episode in Samaria resolving any issues of interpretation concerning the withholding of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The episode in Samaria has caused interpretive problems and much confusion concerning the withholding of the gift of the Holy Spirit from the Samaritans upon their belief, repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins at Philip’s preaching. The root of the interpretive problems is the doctrine of the conflation of the Spirit’s work in salvation with what it means to receive the gift of his indwelling presence. Those who hold to a doctrine that God gives an indwelling, salvation-working gift of the Holy Spirit for, at, or in the moment of salvation (as detailed in Part 2) are especially troubled when they see that this is not Luke’s theology. Attempts to reconcile the confusion are many, but largely unsatisfactory. In fact, it is impossible for a satisfactory solution to come from this position of conflation.The solution, or correct interpretation, however, clearly and simply presents itself when we have the same theological paradigm as Luke—mainly, that the Spirit’s role and work in salvation are of a different scope and timing than what it means to receive the gift of his indwelling presence. No riddle or confusion exists at all, as we will see.
Any doctrinal paradigm concerning the work of the Spirt in salvation and after must have the ability to clearly and simply make sense of all pertinent data throughout the book of Acts. This especially includes the episode at Samaria. If it cannot, and unsolvable, confusing, contradictory, or wholly unsatisfactory interpretations remain that require great lengths, or fancy exegetical footwork, or deep dives into Greek grammatical nuances in order to make them work, then the doctrinal paradigm is in error. Interpretative errors happen when we apply a doctrinal paradigm to the scriptures that is not the scripture’s paradigm. The episode in Samaria is the hallmark case that will prove whether a doctrinal paradigm concerning the Holy Spirit is biblical.
The events of Samaria that are at the heart of the issue are as follows:
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)
With this, let’s examine why the Samaritans did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after their baptism, and why Peter and John had to come there to give them the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Just before Jesus’ ascension, he tells the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the baptism of the Holy Spirit: “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Jesus specifically tells the apostles that the Holy Spirit will empower them to be his witnesses in spreading the gospel from Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and all over the world. The apostles were probably shocked that Jesus said Samaria, given the historical tension between these two people groups (“For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,” John 4:9). Earlier in his ministry, Jesus tells them to avoid the Gentiles and Samaritans in evangelism efforts, focusing only on the Jews (Matthew 10:5).
From the moment the apostles receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until Stephen’s death at the end of Acts 7, they evangelize and make many disciples, in Jerusalem. But the day Stephen is put to death, “a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts 8:1). Perhaps the apostles thought they should remain in Jerusalem to make sure the church there did not perish. Perhaps they had no intention of taking the gospel to all Judea and Samaria, regardless of what Jesus said they were to do. Whatever the reason, they did not leave Jerusalem. But Philip did.
God used the unfortunate murder of Stephen for good in beginning the work he told the apostles they were supposed to do—be his witnesses in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Acts 8 picks right up with Philip (and not the apostles) preaching the word in Samaria. He wins many people to the faith and baptizes them in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. But something is missing. The Holy Spirit does not fall on any of the converts. They do not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; as Luke says, “they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). Philip’s expectation (and what Luke previously distinguishes as normative (Acts 2:38)), of course, is that upon repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins, in which the Spirit does his salvation work, these new believers are then supposed to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (his permanent, indwelling presence). But they do not. Back in Jerusalem, Philip must have witnessed a great many people get baptized and then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, time and time again, whether through prayer and the laying on of hands, or the Spirit’s own falling upon new believers.
Under these curious circumstances, Philip sends word back to the apostles in Jerusalem that Samaria has received the word of God, but not the gift of the Holy Spirit. One can imagine the apostles’ hearts when they hear this news. They all probably remembered the words Jesus spoke to them before his ascension, that they would be his witnesses in Samaria. And here was Philip doing what Jesus said they were to do. The news that Samaria was not receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit despite being baptized into Christ was their sign from God to fulfill their charge. There is no doubt that this is why Jesus withheld the Spirit. Note that it is precisely because Jesus was withholding the baptism of the Holy Spirit from the Samaritans that the apostles send Peter and John, “who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15). In this way, Jesus drew the apostles to Samaria, to spur them on in their charge to take the gospel not just to Jerusalem, but to Samaria and Judea, and all the earth.
The Samaritans receive the gift of the Holy Spirt when Peter and John pray for them to do so, and then lay hands on them. Peter and John are probably still stunned that God has granted the Samaritans salvation. Nevertheless, the apostles are now on the mission to fulfill the great commission outside Jerusalem. Luke tells nothing of Peter and John evangelizing on the way down to Samaria, but this changes when they leave Samaria. Luke ends this narrative showing how their hearts and sense of mission changed: “when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans” (Acts 8:25). Samaria was now on the apostles’ hearts to evangelize, and Peter and John thus begin to fulfill Jesus’ pre-ascension command that they do so. This changes the entire trajectory of the spread of the gospel through the world.
So, we see mainly that Jesus withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit from the Samaritans on account not of the Samaritans’ faith or lack thereof, nor of Philip’s preaching and teaching, but because of the apostles. We must reject any attempt to try to explain the withholding of the Spirit based on some fault with the Samaritans or Philip. This is Jesus’ wake-up call to the apostles that it is time to take the gospel everywhere, per his pre-ascension command. A secondary reason for the withholding is that these were the Samaritans—the despised enemy of the Jews. Jesus drew the apostles there so that the apostles were the ones to give them the Holy Spirit—the same Spirit whose reception unites the believer with the entire body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). This one act of the apostles laying hands on the Samaritans to give them the gift of the Holy Spirit destroyed forever the dividing wall of hostility between these two people groups.
What did the Samaritans receive in their baptism?
In applying the proper paradigm (which is Luke’s paradigm) concerning the different scope and timing of the salvation work of the Holy Spirit in baptism as a prerequisite for then receiving him as a permanent indwelling gift, we clearly see that upon the Samaritans’ faith and repentance, Philip baptizes them for the forgiveness of sins. This is the expected and prescribed norm that Luke sets out in Acts 2:38. God by his Spirit would have done the salvation work he normally does for anyone in the water of baptism, as we saw in Part 3. This means that the Spirit in baptism worked their spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins: in short, their justification and regeneration/renewal. We know the Spirit did his salvation work in these repentant believers because “they had received the Word of God” (Acts 8:14), having met all the conditions for baptism; further, Luke never mentions that the Spirit did not do his salvation work in baptism; Luke mentions only that they did not receive the gift of his indwelling presence after being baptized. Luke expects the reader to understand this.
It is precisely here where the incorrect paradigm of conflating the Spirit’s salvation work with what it means to receive him as the indwelling gift shows itself. If, as this incorrect paradigm requires, a convert receives the saving-indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit in the moment of salvation and for salvation, then for the Samaritans, the Spirit did not do a thing in their baptism, because he was not there. They just got wet. For, in this incorrect paradigm, one must receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in the moment of salvation in order for the Spirit to do his salvation work. Now, if the Spirit did nothing in their baptisms, we would expect to see them get re-baptized. However, they do not. When Peter and John come down to give them the Holy Spirit, they do not re-baptize them, because their baptisms were valid, and the Spirit did his salvation work in it for them. They just had not yet received the gift of the Spirit’s indwelling presence, which is the promise to be given after meeting the prerequisite conditions of faith, repentance, and baptism.
The way Luke alerts the reader that Jesus has withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit (the baptism of the Spirit) is a key to the proper interpretation of the happenings. When Luke reports that the Samaritans had been baptized but had not received the gift of the Holy Spirit, has says, “for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). This shows that, for Luke, the normative order is “first baptism, and then the Holy Spirit.” Luke expects that the reader will recognize that the normative pattern he put forth in Acts 2:38 has been disrupted. By saying, “they had only been baptized,” he expects the reader already understands water baptism’s proper purpose, that it does not convey the Spirit, nor is it the timing of receiving the gift of the indwelling Spirit, but it is for the forgiveness of sins, the prerequisite condition, which, when obeyed, then opens the door for the one baptized to receive the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Saying they had only been baptized comes as a shock and surprise to those who hold the incorrect conflating position, because it appears to downplay the significance and purpose they place on water baptism (mainly, that water baptism is supposed to include the gift of the Spirit). However, in applying the correct paradigm, this does not come as a shock or surprise, or downplay baptism’s significance; rather, it upholds and confirms its significance and purpose, as well as proves the correct interpretive paradigm.
It is impossible to reconcile the facts of this narrative account using an incorrect paradigm, which is why no satisfactory explanation exists when doing so. This position would have to propose that when the Samaritans finally received the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism, the Spirit at that time did all the salvation work he normally does in baptism; however, this concept is found nowhere in the new covenant. No New Testament writer conflates the salvation work of the Spirit with what it means to receive him as the gift of his indwelling presence with its benefits. Applying an incorrect paradigm creates the interpretative problems. Applying the correct paradigm shows that no interpretive problems exist.
Couldn’t it be that Jesus withheld the miraculous gifting of the Spirit, and not the salvation-indwelling gift of the Spirit?
This episode in Samaria is such an important case because it proves the validity of one’s doctrinal paradigm concerning the Holy Spirit. Does the doctrinal lens one applies provide a clear and simple interpretation of all the data, or does it leave the reader confused and perplexed? Can it answer all questions and leave nothing up in the air? Indeed, many attempts to reconcile the confusion exist.
In a nuance to the incorrect, conflated doctrinal position examined above, another attempted solution posits that the Samaritans indeed received the indwelling, saving gift of the Holy Spirit in their water baptism, but they just did not receive the miraculous gift of the Spirit falling upon them for empowerment. But Luke tells us the Samaritans did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at all, juxtaposing it against the fact that “they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In other words, according to Luke, water baptism for the forgiveness of sins does not convey the gift of the Holy Spirit, nor is the indwelling Spirit given in water baptism; the Spirit’s work in water baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit have distinct scopes, timing and purposes, and are not the same thing or event. Luke already expects the reader to understand this, and he is not trying to confuse anyone. That Luke knows of only one gift of the Holy Spirit, and not a separate “indwelling-salvation” gift versus a “falling upon, empowerment gift” is proved by what Peter says to Simon:
18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20)
One “gift of God” exists, not two, and not separated or distinguished in some sort of dual-receiving, salvation-versus-empowerment nuance. Luke has no theology of referring to the gift of the Holy Spirit as a saving, indwelling Holy Spirit versus a spiritual gift empowerment Holy Spirit, where the reader has to try to figure out which one he means. Peter refers here to the one and only gift of the Holy Spirit that those who repent and are baptized are then to receive, of which the Samaritans did not receive normatively. We therefore must reject this nuanced attempt at reconciliation that this doctrinal position posits because, according to Luke, they had not received the gift of the Holy Spirit, period.
In summary, no interpretive problems exist with this episode in Samaria when using the correct Holy Spirit paradigm (which is Luke’s paradigm). No confusion has ever existed in the delay of the Samaritans receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Only when one imports an erroneous doctrinal paradigm that conflates the Spirit’s work in salvation with what it means to receive the gift of his indwelling presence do irreconcilable problems of contradiction and confusion arise.
In Part 5, I will examine the episode of Acts 10 and 11 where Cornelius receives the gift of the Holy Spirit prior to his water baptism.
