Walking in the Way
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17 NASB
Receive the Holy Spirit – Translation, translation, translation. How it changes our understanding of the biblical text. Here, for example, the Greek pneúma hágion is translated as “the Holy Spirit.” But this is theology, not translation. The text itself does not contain a definite article (“the”) and the Greek words alone simply mean breath or wind of sacred character. In Jewish thought, hágios is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qodesh and can be applied to the Temple, a day of the week, instruments of worship, people, or even a state of holiness. There is no justification other than Trinitarian theology to capitalize these words and add the definite article. Furthermore, in the next sentence (the parenthetical remark in the translation), the use of the third person masculine “He” (also capitalized) is an interpretation of the Greek verb according to the theology since it is just as legitimate to translate this word as “it.”
Let’s remove the theological overlay and rethink this story.
Upon hearing that those in Samaria received (the Greek déchomai also means “to accept, to welcome”) God’s word (lógos theóu), they sent Peter and John to investigate. Don’t forget Boyarin’s explanation of lógos theology as a completely Jewish idea in the first century. If Boyarin is correct, then verse 14 says nothing more than that the apostles in Jerusalem heard that people in Samaria also accepted their idea of the lógos. Everything so far is still Jewish.
Peter and John go to Samaria and pray for these people that they would “receive” pneúma hágion. The verb (lambánō) also means “to take up,” “to take to oneself,” “to seize,” and “to collect.” Since there is no Third Person of the Trinity involved here, what this means in Jewish parlance is that Peter and John introduce these people to “the Way,” a view of current events in light of the Messiah, and that these people who have already embraced lógos theology are now encouraged to take up behaviors consistent with this view. Laying on of hands was a Jewish way of transmitting the urgency, power, and inclusion of a message (consider Elijah). The parenthetical remark explains that these Samaritans had only been baptized but did not yet embrace the full lógos perspective.
But what about “had not yet fallen”? How does that fit if the story is entirely Jewish? The Greek verb, ĕpipiptō, has a variety of meanings: to fall upon, to happen to, to press against, to attack, to assail, to embrace, to seize, to lie on. What if we read this verse as “had not yet happened to” or “had not yet embraced”? Notice that the verb is a perfect, active, participle. That means an action in the past which has continuing results and is an on-going condition. The participle form (“ . . . ing”) means the verb becomes a noun of continuing action (“to do” becomes “doing”). This indicates that some past occurrence is now the basis of an ongoing condition. “Had not yet fallen” doesn’t capture this. “They were not yet embracing” is more like it. The idea that the Third Person of the Trinity “falls” upon someone at a specific time is not what this text implies. What the text says is that these people, aware of God’s interaction, were not yet embracing the holiness of God. In other words, something happened in the past (these people heard and welcomed the word of God) and that event is causing a change in their lives that will continue. Peter and John introduce them to the lógos perspective, that is, the Messianic Way, and they embrace it. The entire event is thoroughly Jewish.
Perhaps you will want to read the Acts of the Apostles again without the Christian theological overlay and see if the stories are a bit different.
Topical Index: Holy Spirit, receive, lambánō, ĕpipiptō, Acts 8:14-17
While the theological paradigms of understanding addressed here “are a bit different” we must keep in mind that a paradigm (or a pattern or model of something) is intended as a means of applying our human understanding to something that is not material, not earthly; rather it is spiritual. That is, it comes to us from its origin “above” as heavenly, and as such its reality is apprehensible only in and by spirit. The spirit of man “labors” in vain to acquire that true spiritual food, which is given us for life, (even also as the “mana,” which, too, was given from heaven). But integral paradigms do possess the essential integrity of YHVH’s own nature as spirit— the Spirit of Truth, the Word of God.
Theological and Christological paradigms are truthful only insofar as they accurately and faithfully carry through the integral essence of YHVH’s self-revelation to mankind in virtue of man’s need— that is, man’s need of light so as to be illuminated to the contrasting darkness that encompasses his fallen, sinful condition— regarded with and in respect to YHVH’s essential holiness. God himself utilizes patterns (or templates, if you will), that covey the distinctive difference between fallen man’s need of illuminative instruction and God’s own nature as he actually is in himself that— as absolutely and perfectly rendered—is love. (Read through the book of Hebrews in the New Testament Scriptures for several examples of God’s own choices of such integral templates/patterns/paradigms, used to convey spiritual truth to his earthly people living in a material world… and quite in need of spiritual understanding.)
Thus, it is as a gentile disciple of Yeshua, who fully embraces Yeshua’s teaching and mission and acts as the agent (i.e., God’s anointed Jewish Meshiach) who effects God’s plan of redemption and the salvation of his people, that I make careful use of theological paradigms, continuing in an ongoing quest to gain spiritual understanding (by the spirit of Christ in me, the hope of resurrection and glory) while I yet remain in this material world.
I’ve been wondering about this. For quite a few years I’ve wondered how the apostles could just look at someone and know they had it or not. At the time, the Holy Spirit was tangible and recognizable – but until the last several years, I just imagined it as some sort of glow.
The last time I tried to look at the meaning of the Holy Spirit, I ended up with something like ‘YHWH’s set apart paths’ and in people it was a ‘recognizable sincerity in wanting to follow YHWH’s teachings/law’.