One of my joys is to introduce new words to your vocabulary.
Sometimes I make up those words, and sometimes they are so old that people have forgotten them.
Tonight’s word fits the last category.
Some of you will know this word, but for many this will be a new one.
Who knows what “simony” is?
“Simony” is the buying of religious offices, gifts or powers.
It comes from Latin through the French language, and finds it’s roots right here in the name of this magician.
Let’s think about Simon Magus and the sin of SIMONY.
One of the problems that people have in their Bible study is assuming that they already know what it says.
There are dozens of Bible doctrines which are inviolable.
When there is something which seems to suggest sin in God, then we must assume that our perception of that verse is wrong, because God cannot sin.
If some false prophet tries to say that man is not depraved and dead in sins, then we probably shouldn’t listen to another word that he says.
There are a great many doctrines which cannot be compromised.
And when we come to those passages, it is important once in a while to try to clean the slate and approach it as though we’ve never heard a lesson on it before.
And we have one of those cases here in this scripture.
Probably everyone who has ever read Acts 8 has some sort of opinion about this man.
He was obviously a sinner, but what was his sin?
Was the man a Christian or a thorough hypocrite and deceiver?
Is there enough evidence to reach any conclusions at all?
Are you open enough to rethink about Simon Magus?
You might end up with the same conclusions that you had before, but maybe not.
When you were a child someone told you that there were three of them and that they were kings, right?
What was their official title? They were Magi.
The word translated “wisemen” in Matthew 2:1 is the Greek word “magos”
The ancient Magi had their rise in Persia, and at first studied study of philosophy, astronomy, medicine, and a variety of good and helpful sciences.
But over time they abused some of these disciplines becoming astrologers, soothsayers, necromancers, and fortune-tellers.
They pretended to predict future events by the positions of the stars, and to cure diseases by incantations.
I think that the men who sought the child Jesus, were probably good men and perhaps believers.
But this Simon, the sorcerer, had fallen into the depths of demonism and witchcraft.
Verse 9 says that he had bewitched the people of Samaria from the least to the greatest.
He had probably successfully guessed or manipulated some insignificant events,
Which caught the attention and fancy of the superstitious fools of Samaria.
Just as he had been telling people, they thought that he was the cat’s meow.
“To whom they all gave heed, from the least to greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.”
Some commentaries tell some really fanciful stories about what they think Simon was to these people.
He had all the fun that he wanted just pulling the strings above the people in office.
The word simply means that they were amazed by some of the things that he did.
In fact in verse 13, where it says that “he wondered beholding the miracles and signs of Philip,” that is basically the same word.
I vote for the second.
Here was a man, probably demon possessed, and who had great sway over many others.
And although his work should have been hated, he was as much a victim to his sin as any other poor man.
And then along came the man of God, preaching Christ and working spectacular miracles.
Do you think that Simon could see the difference between holy miracles and satanic deception? Probably.
Was Simon’s power base eroded as many of the Samaritans surrendered to the King of kings? Absolutely.
Then Simon too professed to believe on Christ and presented himself to the missionary to be baptized.
Well, obviously, he was never a child of God because 95% of all the commentaries say so. So?
Obviously, he was not a child of God, because Peter said that he was not. Oh?
Are you sure that is what “gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” means? Absolutely sure?
Remember that this history was written, under the direction of the Holy Spirit by Luke.
He is not recording events as they transpire before his eyes.
Were those people who believed and baptized saved?
We probably should assume so, or at the very least assume that Philip assumed so.
Philip was enough of a Baptist to baptize only those whom he believed were truly saved.
This verse says exactly the same thing about Simon that verse 12 says about the other Samaritans.
Does that fact that he was amazed by the miracles prove that he didn’t actually believe on Christ?
Shouldn’t we assume that Philip told Luke that Simon believed, since that is what he wrote?
Wouldn’t we read about Simon’s “professed” faith or some other term that indicated fraud or self-deception?
This is not conclusive proof, but I think it is evidence that Simon really did believe on Christ.
As he comes into town he immediately hears about the great deceiver named Simon.
But in the next few weeks, this Simon makes a profession of faith in Christ, and asks to be baptized.
Don’t you think that Philip would scrutinize this man’s profession a hundred times more diligently than he would the average Samaritan?
Don’t you think that he would demand to see the fruits of repentance before he’d dunk this man who was so spiritually dangerous before?
What was the reaction of the church in Jerusalem, when Saul of Tarsus came asking for a transfer of membership from the church in Antioch?
Arguably there was more reason to believe and receive Saul than to believe Simon.
And by their laying on of hands conferred on some of the new Samaritan believers some of the extraordinary powers of the Holy Spirit.
Now some of Simon’s neighbors were working genuine miracles, while he was powerless.
Can you imagine how galling that would have been to the man who formerly held such power?
When he saw that the Apostles had the authority to confer the power of God, his native pride and greed said that he wanted that too, so he offered Peter some money – “simony.”
“Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.”
Of course, he had no business of trying to buy the power of the Almighty, and Peter was right in rebuking him.
But notice that his request was not so much that he might have power, but that he might have authority.
But let’s think about Peter’s rebuke:
“But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”
Did Peter tell him that his money would burn in hell along with his soul?
Could Peter have been thinking about Ananias and Sapphira right here?
Couldn’t Peter have been expecting Simon to topple over dead just about now?
Has there ever been a day when the Lord convicted you of sin as a Christian?
Have you ever felt that the Holy Spirit was grieving within you?
Well then, might not Peter have been talking to you?
Some think that only the lost and repent and some think that only Christians can repent.
I believe that, like humility, repentance should be a constant state of our heart.
Any sin and every sin should be repented of, whether you are a Christian or not.
This exhortation of Peter should be preached in every true church in the world every Lord’s day.
It should be preached to Christians as well as the lost.
This doesn’t prove that Simon was a lost man.
Might that not simply mean that the Apostle perceived Simon’s jealousy over these spiritual gifts?
“The bond of iniquity” means that there was sin in his life that was dictating his actions.
There are thousands of true saints of God, who are not as saintly as they ought to be because some sort of sin is determining his life.
Did he rebel and deny that he was “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity”?
Didn’t he ask for the prayers of saints?
Some of the commentaries suggest that he was commanded to repent, but there is no proof that he did.
True, and there is no proof that he didn’t.
Furthermore, I don’t read of any further judgment – either human or divine.
He did not die as Ananias did.
Simon and his simony was sin, and he should have repented.
But this sin is no more sinful than lack of attendance in the house of God, or a fit of anger.
They should all be repented of.
I don’t think that there is undeniable proof that Simon is not a child of God.
We don’t read of catechism classes, or months of examination before baptism.
I think that churches ought to be cautious about who they accept as members, but unless there is good reason to refuse someone or even delay their baptism, they should be quickly received.
Second, if we assume, as so many do, that Simon was not a Christian,
The fact that there are people in a church who are not true believers,
That does not automatically disqualify an assembly from being one of the Lord’s churches.
Third, just because a man is born again, and a member of one of the Lord’s churches,
That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t need to be concerned about his old sins.
We must never let our guard down.
We must never assume that we have grown into perfect holiness.
And most particularly, we must guard against the sins that have plagued us since our youth.
Simony is a sin, but “if we confess our sins, Christ is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all our iniquities.”