There aren’t too many people in history that get a sin named after them. A few people are notorious enough that their name is always associated with evil, say like Judas or Jezebel. But to get your own sin, well you must have screwed up good and proper. History can be a harsh mistress sometimes because even Adam & Eve who were the first to get things wrong didn’t get their own sin. But Simon Magus, Simon the Magician, Simon the Sorcerer, well, he did.
The sin of Simony, attempting to buy spiritual office or power, has a long & colourful history. Pope Gregory I (590-604 AD) called such acts, ‘simoniac heresy’. Although later Popes, especially the medieval and renaissance ones, would prove themselves time and again to be unrepentant master exponents and proponents of said heresy.
All down through history Simon has had a raw deal, even getting connected to dodgy stuff in cultures that he had nothing to do with becoming known as Simon the Druid in Ireland for example. And his reputation today remains in the mud. Trevin Wax recently gave him a name check under the heading ‘spiritual grifters’.
We can’t miss another reason division arises—some church leaders are charlatans pursuing personal gain. Consider Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9–24). He saw the Holy Spirit’s power and wanted to buy it. He wanted to leverage God’s gift for his own power and profit.
Today’s church still has its share of grifters. False teachers, prosperity preachers, and opportunists continue to exploit the gospel for personal enrichment. Scripture warns against those who peddle God’s Word for profit (2 Cor. 2:17). We do well to separate from frauds.
Poor old Simon the Grifter. So I’d like to make a small contribution in coming to poor Simon’s defence. Here are 5 reasons why.
1.He was a baptized believer
Let’s not overlook this point. Simon was caught up in the Samaritan revival, he heard Philip preach the gospel, heard him speak of the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ. He believed and was baptised (Acts 8:13). The text gives no indication at this point that there is any difference between Simon and any of the other Samaritan converts. If Simon wasn’t a Christian then this is an object lesson for credobaptists everywhere to do your due diligence.
2. He was in awe at the power of God
Having believed and been baptised Simon then follows Philip around and watches the ‘signs and great miracles’ that Philip is the instrument for. Having previously practised magic Simon knew a thing or two about impressive trickery yet it would seem he also could tell that what Philip was up to was of a different kind entirely. Unlike plenty of Christians today, Simon was neither sceptical nor a scoffer when it came to seeing God at work
3. He wanted the Holy Spirit
When Peter & John come down to Samaria to complete & complement the work of Philip by laying on hands so the new believers would receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15), Simon sees and wants that too. And then gets it wrong. Before we get to his error though it’s worth noting that the text doesn’t say that Simon wants the power of ‘signs and miracles’ but the power to give people the Holy Spirit. So whatever was happening when people received the Holy Spirit it was more impressive than miracles.
4. He was ignorant not evil
Simon then does make the mistake of wanting to buy this power. This really isn’t all that surprising because Simon had been a professional magician. Magic was his trade. He no doubt sold potions and curses, remedies and blessings and did enough trickery to keep the customers coming. Your friendly neighbourhood witchdoctor does the same. Simon Magus not knowing any different offers the apostles some cash in return for holy hands that transfer the Holy Spirit.
Peter, roundly and in no uncertain terms rejects this offer. Christianity, the Holy Spirit, the signs and the miracles have nothing to do with pagan magic, please and thank you.
I. Howard Marshall in his commentary on Acts says,
J. B. Phillips boldly translated the opening phrase as ‘To hell with you and your money!’, which may sound like profanity, but is precisely what the Greek says. It is the utterance of a curse against Simon, consigning him and his money with him to destruction.
Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries p.168.
Strong stuff.
Interestingly Peter then says something about Simon that the text so far has not indicated and one wonders, how he knew. Peter says Simon’s ‘heart is not right before God’ and that Simon is ‘poisoned by bitterness and bound by wickedness.’ Was it something in the way Simon asked? Simply a revelation from the Holy Spirit? Or simply that Peter has such a visceral reaction to the notion that Simon must be bitter and wicked? Or perhaps something else that indicated to Peter that despite being a baptised believer he was still an unrepentant one.
5.He repented
Peter makes a curious statement when calling Simon to repentance saying, “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, your heart’s intent may be forgiven” (Acts 8:22). Peter doesn’t seem entirely sure that forgiveness is automatic on this one. Was this perhaps the unforgivable sin? Probably not, but Peter seems to be hedging his bets and it’s certainly not the unequivocal blanket offer of forgiveness that we usually associate with the forgiveness of sins.
But here’s the end of story. The last thing Scripture tells us of Simon Magus is his response to Peter’s blistering refusal and condemnation: “Pray to the Lord for me,” Simon replied, “so that nothing you have said may happen to me” (Acts 8:24).
It would be an odd story to include in the context of Acts following Paul’s conversion and before the conversion of the Ethiopian to end with the Samarian episode with an unrepentant magician. It is conceivable that it could be serving as a warning in the way that the story of Ananias & Sapphira does but I’m not so sure.
Simon’s response sounds like repentance. Peter says seek the Lord and Simon does. That he asks Peter & John to do it is not Simon missing the point but entirely appropriate in the time and culture. Simon is humbling himself, he doesn’t want the fate Peter threatens him with.
How then did the church come to regard Simon as a scoundrel? It seems Justin Martyr & Irenaeus are to blame possibly recording a legend that Simon came to Rome and carried on with his previous wicked ways, but there seems reason to doubt the legend.
Leave a Reply