The stream for Wednesday November 16 has been canceled due to illness.

SBC Family,

Robin and I are getting sick, the three olders are bad sick, so I am canceling class tonight. Too bad because we were going to study the guy who became known by legend to be Simon Magus, but that's not too interesting since it's probably not true. 😉

He is an interesting case study though, especially in light of the argument Luke is making in Acts. Most commentators doubt that he really believed or had true faith. The text says many people of Samaria believed. Then the next verse says even Simon believed, using the same word in the same tense (with one being plural and the other singular).

Those who claim he did not really believe claim that his actions show that he was not interested in the things of God and only wanted to pursue the apostles powers, that He did not confess his sin or repent of sin (both false additions to believing). They further claim that there is a false belief in the gospels and they mention two passages; John 2:22-25 and James 2:19.

John 2:22 says they believed. Then in 2:25 Jesus says that He was not entrusting Himself to them because He knew what was in man. This does not mean they were unbelievers. It simply means that their belief was shallow at the time.

James 2:19 says even the demons believe that God is one. These words actually come out of the mouth of James' debate opponent, not James' mouth (cf 2:18, "someone will say..."). They are not true doctrine. Besides, demons aren't offered salvation and believing that God is one wouldn't be enough to be saved anyway!

This is an example of misusing two passages to support another misuse of another passage. I see it all the time.

Further, they claim that Peter told Simon he needed to repent to be forgiven thus evidencing he was certainly an unbeliever. But the Bible tells believers they need to repent too, so does it certainly mean he's an unbeliever? No. They also say Peter told him "your silver perish with you," and they claim that means go to hell. However, it is just as plausible, if not more to compare Simon to Ananias who committed a sin unto death. Peter thought Simon was on the verge of being struck dead. The only reason he wasn't is he was ignorant of what he was doing while Ananias knew full well what he was doing. Finally, they argue that Peter said Simon was in the gall of bitterness and in the sinews of iniquity, indicating he was most definitely not converted. However, the descriptions of Simon can describe a believer. No one changes their behavior instantly when they believe. A believer can still be in the clutches of sin, under the power of the sin nature, and live by the flesh and desire special powers. In fact, many believers have done this. So, there really is no reason to say Simon is not a real believer other than someone wanting to push their theology on an audience. Of course, Simon was rebuked and needed to get in fellowship with the Lord. He needed time to grow and learn.

What purpose would it serve in Luke's argument to present this story about Simon as a counterfeit believer? Some say to show that Satan is sowing counterfeit believers among us. I don't see that argument being made here. If he is it is the only place he is making that kind of argument in the whole book. The book argument is about Jesus building His church. At this point he is showing that the gospel was moving out of Jerusalem into Samaria and making inroads in Satan's kingdom. Sometimes the gospel is received by people who are deeply involved in paganism and they struggle to break out of it, but they still believed and were saved out of Satan's clutches. I will know more as I keep studying this passage for next time.

Enjoy a night off, trust in the Lord, rejoice in the Lord always, again I say rejoice!

Grace to you,
Jeremy