The most natural explanation of the delayed gift of the
Spirit is that this was the first occasion on which the gospel had
been proclaimed not only outside Jerusalem but inside Samaria.
This is clearly the importance of the occasion in Luke's unfolding
story, since the Samaritans were a kind of half-way house between
Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, `the conversion of Samaria was like the
first-fruits of the calling of the gentiles'. The nearest
equivalents to the investigation by Peter and John were when the
Gentiles first believed. When Cornelius was converted, the
apostles asked Peter to explain his actions (11:1-18), and when
Greeks turned to the Lord in Antioch, Barnabus was sent there to
reconnoitre the situation (11:20:24). --John Stott
That's the conclusion... here's the argument:
the Samaritans schism had lasted for
centuries. But now the Samaritans were being evangelized, and were
responding to the gospel. It was a moment of significant advance,
which was also fraught with great peril. What would happen now?
Would the long-standing rift be perpetrated? The gospel had been
welcomed by the Samaritans, but would the Samaritans be welcomed
by the Jews? Or would there be separate factions of Jewish
Christians and Samaritan Christians in the church of Jesus Christ?
The idea may seem unthinkable in theory; in practice it might well
have happened. There was a real `danger...of their tearing Christ
apart, or at least of forming a new and separate church for
themselves'.
Is it not reasonable to suggest (in view of this historical
background) that, in order to avoid such a disaster, God
deliberately withheld the Spirit from these Samaritan converts?
The delay was only temporary, however, until the apostles had come
down to investigate, had endorsed Philip's bold policy of
Samaritan evangelism, had prayed for the converts, had laid hands
on them as `a token of fellowship and solidarity', and had thus
given a public sign to the whole church as well as to the
Samaritans converts themselves, that they were *bona fide*
Christians, to be incorporated into the redeemed community on
precisely the same terms as Jewish converts. To quote Geoffrey
Lampe again, `at this turning-point in the mission something else
was required in addition to the ordinary baptism of the converts.
It had to be demonstrated to the Samaritans beyond a shadow of
doubt that they had really become members of the church, in
fellowship with the original "pillars".... An unprecedented
situation demanded quite exceptional methods'.
This seems to be the only explanation which takes account of
all the data of Acts 8, reads the story in its historical context
of the developing Christian mission, and is consistent with the
rest of the New Testament. It is also becoming increasingly
accepted on both sides of the Charismatic divide. Although
J.I.Packer calls it no more than a `guess', he adds that it `seems
rational and reverent'. Similarly, Michael Green sees the delay as
`a divine veto on schism in the infant church, a schism which
could have slipped almost unnoticed into the Christian fellowship,
as converts from the two sides of the "Samaritan curtain" found
Christ without finding each other. That would have been the denial
of the one baptism and all it stood for.
At all events, the action of the apostles appears to have
been effective. Henceforward, Jews and Samaritans were to be
admitted into the Christian community without distinction. There
was one body because there was one Spirit.
To sum up, the Samaritan happening provides no biblical
warrant either for the doctrine of a two-stage Christian
initiation as the norm, or for the practice of an imposition of
hands to inaugurate the supposed second stage. The official visit
and action of Peter and John were historically exceptional. These
things have no precise parallels in our day, because there are no
longer any Samaritans or any apostles of Christ. Today , because
we are not Samaritans, we receive forgiveness and the Spirit
together the moment we believe. As for the laying on of hands,
although it can be an appropriate and helpful gesture in various
contexts, its use as the means by which the Spirit is given and
received lacks authority, whether in episcopal confirmation or in
charismatic ministry, because neither bishops nor pentecostal
leaders are apostles comparable to Peter and John, any more than
Philip was, although directly appointed by them.
