They had accepted Christ as their Savior.

     They had been baptized in water.

     Strangely, Philip refused to leave.  Something crucial had not taken place with the Samaritans.

     What had not taken place?

     We are told in the following passage of Scripture: 

"Now when the apostles (special messengers) at Jerusalem heard that [the country of] Samaria had accepted and welcomed the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.  And they came down and prayed for them that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit:  For He had not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.  Then [the apostles] laid their hands on them one by one and they received the Holy Spirit."--Acts 8:14-17. (Amp). 

     In Samaria, the people had repented, accepted Christ as Savior, and been publicly baptized by Philip as a testimony of their salvation.  They had become new creatures in Christ Jesus.  The Holy Spirit had accompanied Philip's ministry, working miracles through him, convicting sinners and leading them to faith in Christ.  The Holy Spirit had also entered into the heart of each believing Samaritan at the instant each was born again.  They were saved, and the Holy Spirit was dwelling within each believer.  However, they had not received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.  He was in them in salvation, but not upon them in empowerment.  Philip refused to leave them in this condition.  He waited for the arrival of Peter and John, who laid hands on the Samaritans one by one, and they received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit empowering them to be witnesses for Jesus Christ.

     Evidently, Philip genuinely led the Samaritans to Christ.  Nonetheless, not all men are called to do all things.  Some ministers have more success in one area than in another.  Billy Graham has been a very fruitful evangelist, but he has never pastored a church.  A man may be mightily anointed to pastor a church, but have no evangelistic or healing anointing to speak of.  Another may be a prophet or a great Healing Evangelist, but not have much success in teaching.  Philip was a strong evangelist, but he was not successful in ministering to the Samaritans the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.   Peter and John apparently were more adept at ministering the Baptism.  So these two Apostles came and laid their hands on the Samaritans one by one, and each received the empowering Baptism in the Holy Spirit. 

     Now we get to the main point of this article.

     What evidence did God give in Samaria as proof of their receiving the Baptism?

     At Pentecost, the only evidence given was that all spoke in other tongues.  Did they speak in tongues at Samaria?

     God obviously gave some kind of immediate tangible evidence.

     Philip knew they hadn't received.

     He KNEW.

     He didn't guess at it.

     Likewise, the Apostles also had some distinct way of telling that the Samaritans had not received the Baptism.

     HOW DID THEY KNOW?  

     And after the Apostles laid their hands on the Samaritans, one by one, they had some way of telling that each had received.

     HOW COULD THEY TELL?

     Some wrongly argue that when you receive the infilling, or the outpouring, of the Holy Spirit, God may give any of a number of signs.  "Yes," they may grudgingly admit, "God may give tongues as the proof.  But He may also give other proofs.  A person might begin to bear wonderful spiritual fruit.  They might have a much closer walk with the Lord.  They might develop into a powerful evangelistic, teaching, or pastoral ministry."

     WHOA!

     Wait a minute!

     Spiritual fruit is borne over time.  A closer walk with God is proven through a consistent testimony over months or years.  And powerful ministries are developed and proven over a lifetime.

     The Apostles did not stand there, waiting and waiting, guessing and guessing, year after year, as to who had received and who had not.

     Get this:

     THEY KNEW INSTANTLY WHO HAD RECEIVED AND WHO HAD NOT RECEIVED.

     How?

     The anti-tongues crowd never has an answer for that one.  

     God gave some kind of immediate, dramatic, and unmistakable sign of the Holy Spirit's empowerment.

     The Apostles laid their hands on the Samaritan believers, one by one, and everyone witnessed some kind of sign that let everyone know that the Holy Spirit's power had come upon each believer.

     What was this sign? 

     The sign was immediate.  No months and years of guesswork involved.

     The sign was dramatic.  It was so dramatic, that when Simon the Sorcerror saw that this sign was given through the laying on of hands, he tried to buy from the Apostles this ability to minister the Holy Spirit.  

     The sign was unmistakable.  Once the sign was given, there was no doubt in anyone's mind afterwards that the believer had truly received.

     If the sign was not the immediate, dramatic, and unmistakable sign of speaking in tongues, then what was it?

     I think several facts point to the sign being speaking in tongues.

     First of all, speaking in tongues was the one and only sign given at Pentecost. 

     The Bible does not list multiple signs of the Spirit's outpouring at Pentecost.  And the Holy Spirit could have chosen to give any number of instant proofs.  For instance, at Pentecost, some might have spoken in tongues, and others might have had a supernatural light eminate from them as Moses did when he came down from the Mount, and as Christ did when He was on the Mount of Transfiguration.  Or, some of the assembled believers might have been given the ability to walk on water, or turn water into wine, as had both been done by our Lord.  What a miraculous testimony that would have been to repeat the miracles of our Lord.  The Holy Spirit could have given these signs, these instantaneous abilities, but He chose not to.  He gave one sign only:  speaking in other tongues.

     Secondly, before Samaria, the believers spoke in tongues at Pentecost.  And after Pentecost, they spoke in tongues at the house of Cornelius: 

     "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word...[and] they heard them speak speak with tongues, and magnify God."--Acts 10:44,46. 

     And years afterwards, it is specifically recorded that the believers spoke in tongues at Ephesus when Paul ministered to them: 

"And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.--Acts 19:6. 

     Additionally, it is a fact that believers spoke in tongues at Corinth.

     We are given no indication that previous miracles and healings were confined to Jerusalem, or to any other geographic location.  Is there any logical reason to believe that speaking in tongues occurred in Jerusalem, Cornelius' house, Ephesus, and Corinth, but for some legitimate reason did not occur in Samaria?

     Someone might argue, "Well, it doesn't specifically say that they spoke in tongues in Samaria."

     True.

     But we also know that in Acts Chapter 20, Paul ministered to eight believers in Ephesus, and that they spoke in tongues.  Yet in his later epistle to the Ephesians, Paul does not even mention speaking in tongues.

     Similarly, Acts records Paul ministering at Corinth, and the Book of Acts does not mention speaking in tongues occurring there.  But we know tongues did happen there, because Paul later devoted the better part of three chapters of First Corinthians to teaching about them and correcting their misuse at Corinth.  If we did not have Paul's First letter to the Corinthians, people would also be arguing today that speaking in tongues did not occur at all at Corinth.

     It seems to me that if tongues occurred at Pentecost, at Cornelius' house, at Ephesus, and at Corinth, had it not occurred at Samaria, it's absence would have seemed odd and had been noted.  But nothing the Apostles considered unusual was noted.  Speaking in tongues is not recorded as being present at Samaria, but neither is it noted as being absent either.

     Thirdly, since God is no respecter of persons, to give tongues as the evidence to the Jews at Pentecost, and later to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house, but to withhold tongues at Samaria would be to treat the Samaritans differently than He treated the Jews and Gentiles--which He absolutely will not do.

     Surely at some point Philip or the Apostles told the Samaritans about the Jews speaking wonderful praises to God in other tongues at Pentecost.  People back then were the same as they are today.  If the Samaritans received the Baptism, but did not speak in tongues as the Jews did at Pentecost, they would naturally have asked why the Jews experienced tongues and they did not.  But we find no evidence in Scripture that awkward questions arose, or that Philip, Peter, or John had to enter into lengthy explanations, and give the usual anti-tongues arguments that are offered today.

     Fourthly, in the absence of the extraordinary, and since speaking in tongues ordinarily accompanied the Baptism before and after Samaria, we must assume that the ordinary happened--they spoke in tongues.

IN SUMMATION

     I believe that the only reasonable conclusion is that the Samaritans were given the sign of speaking in tongues because: 

Copyright 2006  Mel C. Montgomery  All rights reserved.  Material may be copied and shared with others if done so without charge, in entirety, and if attribution is given.