Why couldn't Philip minister the Holy Spirit?

[ByTheSpirit]

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17

So most of us know this passage. Philip goes to Samaria and preaches the gospel. Many were baptized into the faith, but "the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them."

Why couldn't Philip, a man who was "full of the Holy Spirit" minister the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan believers? Why did Peter and John have to go to do this?

More importantly I think, is what does this story mean to us in the modern church? Are all Spirit filled believers equipped to minister the Holy Spirit, or should only elders and leaders do this, like Peter and John.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I found this online in regards to this question:

"This understanding is also expressed in the writing of the Church Fathers. John Chrysostom (4th c.) wrote, for example:

Why were these not in receipt of the Holy Spirit? It may be that Philip kept this honor for the apostles, or that he did not have this gift or that he was one of the seven. The last is most likely. Thus, I take it, this Philip was one of the seven, the one after Stephen, while the Philip in the story of the eunuch was one of the apostles. Notice how the seven did not go forth. It was part of God’s plan of salvation for those to go forth and for these to be lacking because of the Holy Spirit. For it was the power to work signs that they received, not the power to give the Spirit to others. This was the prerogative of the apostles. And note [how they sent] not just anyone but the leaders, Peter [and John].1

Bede (7th/8th c.) also explained this in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles:

It must be noted that the Philip who preached the gospel to Samaria was one of the seven, for if he had been the apostle [Philip], he would have been able to lay hands on them himself so that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

This implication here is pretty immense of course, that only the Apostles could minister the Holy Spirit, which by effect would mean no one today could have the Holy Spirit as the Apostles have of course been gone for some 2000 years now.

But there's also a huge hole in this line of thinking. Ananias was not an Apostle, yet it was Ananias the laid hands on Saul and ministered the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that was just a one off, because it was Jesus who told Ananias to do it, perhaps Jesus gave a temporary anointing to do so?

Just so we are clear, I'm not questioning the authenticity of anyone's "Baptism in the Spirit". I'm merely trying to understand why an evangelist in scripture didn't lay hands on people to receive the Spirit.

 

[hislegacy]

Scripture is silent on the question.

However we have 2,000 years of history with all manner of Christians being Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

 

[HTacianas]

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17

So most of us know this passage. Philip goes to Samaria and preaches the gospel. Many were baptized into the faith, but "the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them."

Why couldn't Philip, a man who was "full of the Holy Spirit" minister the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan believers? Why did Peter and John have to go to do this?

More importantly I think, is what does this story mean to us in the modern church? Are all Spirit filled believers equipped to minister the Holy Spirit, or should only elders and leaders do this, like Peter and John.

If you read the story of Philip and the men of Samaria you run across Simon Magus. Note that Simon Magus offered money to the Apostles for the gift of conveying the Holy Spirit. Not that they would give the Holy Spirit to him, but for the gift of conveying the Spirit. That identifies the gift itself. Philip did not have that gift. In the case of Ananias, Ananias did. Ananias had that gift because it had been given to him at some point. See also Timothy:

1Ti 4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

The Apostles were originally given that gift, and they handed it down through their successors. Their successors are the Patriarchs and Bishops of modern times.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

If you read the story of Philip and the men of Samaria you run across Simon Magus. Note that Simon Magus offered money to the Apostles for the gift of conveying the Holy Spirit. Not that they would give the Holy Spirit to him, but for the gift of conveying the Spirit. That identifies the gift itself. Philip did not have that gift. In the case of Ananias, Ananias did. Ananias had that gift because it had been given to him at some point. See also Timothy:

1Ti 4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

The Apostles were originally given that gift, and they handed it down through their successors. Their successors are the Patriarchs and Bishops of modern times.

That is incorrect.

3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. Acts 6:3-6

We see Philip mentioned here for the first time. He was one of the seven deacons initially chosen for ministry by the Apostles. What were the stipulations imposed upon the selection of these 7?

1) The chosen had to be full of wisdom
2) The chosen had to be full of the Holy Spirit

Also, to further collaborate this point, in the passage in question in Acts 8:7 and Acts 8:13, the scriptures state the Philip was healing a great many people, casting out unclean spirits and performing great signs and wonders. Also evidence of having the Holy Spirit.

So to say that Philip didn't lay hands on these in Samaria because he did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit is incorrect.

 

[HTacianas]

That is incorrect.

3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. Acts 6:3-6

We see Philip mentioned here for the first time. He was one of the seven deacons initially chosen for ministry by the Apostles. What were the stipulations imposed upon the selection of these 7?

1) The chosen had to be full of wisdom
2) The chosen had to be full of the Holy Spirit

Also, to further collaborate this point, in the passage in question in Acts 8:7 and Acts 8:13, the scriptures state the Philip was healing a great many people, casting out unclean spirits and performing great signs and wonders. Also evidence of having the Holy Spirit.

So to say that Philip didn't lay hands on these in Samaria because he did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit is incorrect.

You're missing the point. It's not to say that Philip did not have the Holy Spirit, but that Philip did not possess the gift of conveying the Holy Spirit. Those are two different things. Looking at Simon Magus, he did not offer money to receive the Holy Spirit, but offered money for the power to convey the Holy Spirit to others.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

You're missing the point. It's not to say that Philip did not have the Holy Spirit, but that Philip did not possess the gift of conveying the Holy Spirit. Those are two different things. Looking at Simon Magus, he did not offer money to receive the Holy Spirit, but offered money for the power to convey the Holy Spirit to others.

Is such a gift mentioned in scripture? I don't think I've ever read where one of the gifts of the Spirit was the gift to impart the Spirit? You mentioned Ananias, but nothing in the narrative of Ananias suggests that he possessed such a gift, if one exists. I guess I'm curious from where you understand that this is a gift in such a way.

 

[HTacianas]

Is such a gift mentioned in scripture? I don't think I've ever read where one of the gifts of the Spirit was the gift to impart the Spirit? You mentioned Ananias, but nothing in the narrative of Ananias suggests that he possessed such a gift, if one exists. I guess I'm curious from where you understand that this is a gift in such a way.

From the story of Philip. Again, note that Simon Magus wanted the gift of conveying the Holy Spirit. The apostles did not say there was no such gift, only that it could not be bought with money. That leads us back to your original question, why could Philip not convey the Holy Spirit. Philip could not convey the Holy Spirit because he did not possess that gift. While in the case of Ananias it does not mention how exactly he came to possess that gift, only that he had it.

 

[ARBITER01]

I found this online in regards to this question:

"This understanding is also expressed in the writing of the Church Fathers. John Chrysostom (4th c.) wrote, for example:


Bede (7th/8th c.) also explained this in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles:



This implication here is pretty immense of course, that only the Apostles could minister the Holy Spirit, which by effect would mean no one today could have the Holy Spirit as the Apostles have of course been gone for some 2000 years now.

But there's also a huge hole in this line of thinking. Ananias was not an Apostle, yet it was Ananias the laid hands on Saul and ministered the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that was just a one off, because it was Jesus who told Ananias to do it, perhaps Jesus gave a temporary anointing to do so?

Just so we are clear, I'm not questioning the authenticity of anyone's "Baptism in the Spirit". I'm merely trying to understand why an evangelist in scripture didn't lay hands on people to receive the Spirit.

Any of the offices that can be given to a Christian can have that ability associated with it, hence why we see Ananias the prophet able to do it and not just the apostles.

In relation to your original question, I don't think Phillip gave out the filling of The Holy Spirit because he was not led to by The Holy Spirit to do so. In my opinion he was fully capable of doing it, he was just never led to, which in turn then gives validation in scripture of us seeking the filling of The Spirit after our born again experience.

 

[eleos1954]

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17

So most of us know this passage. Philip goes to Samaria and preaches the gospel. Many were baptized into the faith, but "the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them."

Why couldn't Philip, a man who was "full of the Holy Spirit" minister the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan believers? Why did Peter and John have to go to do this?

More importantly I think, is what does this story mean to us in the modern church? Are all Spirit filled believers equipped to minister the Holy Spirit, or should only elders and leaders do this, like Peter and John.

God decides how the Holy Spirit will work in the believer .... not any man.

Believers should be equipped to spread the gospel this is our ministry .... beyond that God decides how His spirit will work in each because only He knows the heart. They laid hands on them and prayed (prayer) and their prayers were answered. Perhaps Phillip didn't pray for them? Now ... not all prayers are answered all the time ... but in this case ... their prayers were answered.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17

So most of us know this passage. Philip goes to Samaria and preaches the gospel. Many were baptized into the faith, but "the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them."

Why couldn't Philip, a man who was "full of the Holy Spirit" minister the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan believers? Why did Peter and John have to go to do this?

More importantly I think, is what does this story mean to us in the modern church? Are all Spirit filled believers equipped to minister the Holy Spirit, or should only elders and leaders do this, like Peter and John.

He did not lay hands on them. My best guess! Scripture is not clear. I know my own personal experience, when I recieved His Holy Spirit, involved the laying on of hands. I'll seek some scripture on that and post again.
Blessings.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17

So most of us know this passage. Philip goes to Samaria and preaches the gospel. Many were baptized into the faith, but "the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them."

Why couldn't Philip, a man who was "full of the Holy Spirit" minister the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan believers? Why did Peter and John have to go to do this?

More importantly I think, is what does this story mean to us in the modern church? Are all Spirit filled believers equipped to minister the Holy Spirit, or should only elders and leaders do this, like Peter and John.

Cont....
Here are more verses about laying on of hands:

• Acts 9:17-18

Ananias went to the house and laid his hands on Saul. Immediately, Saul's sight was restored, and he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

• Acts 19:6

When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and prophesy.

• 1 Timothy 4:14

Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.

• 2 Timothy 1:6-7

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

 

[tturt]

"Lay hands quickly on no man, nor partake in others' sins. Keep thyself pure." I Tim 5:22

Dont see much discussion about partaking in others' sins aspect of laying on of hands.

Need the leading of the Holy Spirit for both parties- to lay hands on another or be the one on the receiving end

Also, "the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment." Heb 6:2
Could be just me but haven't seen a lot on these topics either.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

"Lay hands quickly on no man, nor partake in others' sins. Keep thyself pure." I Tim 5:22

Dont see much discussion about partaking in others' sins aspect of laying on of hands.

Need the leading of the Holy Spirit for both parties- to lay hands on another or be the one on the receiving end

Also, "the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment." Heb 6:2
Could be just me but haven't seen a lot on these topics either.

Interesting, and yes it would be fun to discuss those things.

I wonder if maybe Philip saw something in Simon Magus or the Spirit told him something and he decided to defer to the Apostles on that matter.

 

[jiminpa]

As was already said, we're making a discussion, (and some people doctrine), out of what the Bible doesn't address.

We don't know that Philip couldn't have laid hands on them for the Holy Spirit, we know that he sent for Peter and John once the Samaritans recieved Jesus and were baptized, but before they were baptized in the Spirit. The possible reasons are innumerable, and entire really bad doctrines have been built on man's attempt at speculating.

I hate shutting down your discussion, but man has really made some destructive doctrines on the Bible's silence here. We're just so stupid, all of us.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

As was already said, we're making a discussion, (and some people doctrine), out of what the Bible doesn't address.

We don't know that Philip couldn't have laid hands on them for the Holy Spirit, we know that he sent for Peter and John once the Samaritans recieved Jesus and were baptized, but before they were baptized in the Spirit. The possible reasons are innumerable, and entire really bad doctrines have been built on man's attempt at speculating.

I hate shutting down your discussion, but man has really made some destructive doctrines on the Bible's silence here. We're just so stupid, all of us.

It's not bad to ask questions Jim, it's actually encouraged. As long as we don't do what you're saying "making a doctrine" out of it, we are fine. I don't see that happening here, some have suggested such doctrines already exist which cannot be helped.

But it's a rather important question I think. Too many people are quick to lay hands on others when this story gives us a narrative that perhaps we shouldn't. As @tturt pointed out, it's actually a biblical command not to be hasty in laying on of hands.

This my question, why didn't Philip? As others have suggested, perhaps it was due to Simon Magus, or more than likely, the Holy Spirit just told him not too and we don't have that recorded. Either way, we should all pay attention to stuff like this.

Ultimately, I think it was because Philip was being obedient to the Spirit, who had his own reasons for it. Which is what we should all strive for, obedience to the Spirit.

 

[hislegacy]

This my question, why didn't Philip?

Nobody knows and scripture is silent.

The best anyone can do is guess.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Nobody knows and scripture is silent.

The best anyone can do is guess.

Of course, I only repeated the question in response to another. It's all good, can we close this thread down from further discussion?

 

[hislegacy]

Of course, I only repeated the question in response to another. It's all good, can we close this thread down from further discussion?

you would have to contact a moderator.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Per the OP's request:

MOD HAT OFF​