Mark 15:16-22
The book of Mark says that Simon was a Cyrene. This indicates he was probably born and raised on the north coast of Africa in the capital city of his province, Cyrenaica.
Cyrenaica was originally Greek. In the fourth century b.c., it was a democracy. Unlike some Roman provinces, it was not conquered, but bequeathed to the empire in 96 b.c. It was originally declared free, but after some local problems, it became a province of Rome.
In the first century Cyrenaica was still a wealthy area and its wealth came from agriculture. Silphium was a prominent export. It was in high demand as a spice and as a medicine.
A large part of the population of Cyreniaca were Greek-speaking Jews. They had been sent there as settlers and they enjoyed equal rights.
Simon could have been from this group, but that doesn’t otherwise tell us his ethnic make-up. Tradition has made much of the fact that he was a native of Africa.
Of the personalities around the crucifixion, there are legends that some of them became Christians, those who were not already. These include Pilate, Caiaphas, Annas and Simon of Cyrene.
There is no evidence, one way or the other, for the truth of most of these legends, except, perhaps, in Simon’s case.
Scholars point to the fact that his name is mentioned with a feeling that the readers will recognize him, which they certainly would if he had become a disciple after the crucifixion. Just the fact that it was known that he was a Cyrene is significant. He wasn’t anonymous to the Christians.
Mark adds the information that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, as though these names will also be very familiar to those who read the gospel. It certainly gives a strong impression that the early church knew this family and that the sons and possibly the father had indeed become followers of Jesus.
By the time that Jesus was dragging his cross to Golgotha, he was in poor shape. He probably fell often. At one point the soldiers decided he either couldn’t continue, or wasn’t going fast enough. So they grabbed a man out of the crowd and made him carry the cross. It was Simon of Cyrene.
Simon the Cyrene was not an important man. He wasn’t a history-maker. If he hadn’t been there, someone else would have been pulled from the crowd. But it wasn’t someone else; it was this man from Africa. He was forced to carry the cross.
What burdens have you been forced to carry?
In what ways can we turn a burden we’ve been forced to carry into an act of discipleship?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Gamaliel
Acts 5:34-39 22:3
The Apostle Paul reports in Acts 22 that he was a student of Gamaliel. We have already been introduced to him earlier in the book of Acts. When Peter and the other Apostles were under scrutiny of some members of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel counseled moderation in treatment of them. He said that if what they were doing was not God’s will, it would die out on its own. If it is God’s will, the council would be in the untenable position of opposing God.
Concerns have been raised by Scholars as to the mention of Gamaliel as a teacher of Paul. The question has been, if Paul was the student of such a man, how did Paul become so intolerant and so vigorously persecute the Christians? His teachings also do not seem in accord with the style of rabbinic teaching. It doesn’t seem logical, but students do sometimes stray from both the teaching and spirit of their mentors.
Gamaliel was the grandson of a famous Rabbi – Hillel and the grandfather of Gamaliel II. His learning and generous spirit enhanced the prestige of liberal Pharisaism and effected its survival and vitality in serving the Jewish people after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Among other kindly and liberal actions he took was opening the amount of movements that was permitted to certain groups on the Sabbath. (Work, travel, etc. are not allowed on the Sabbath according to Jewish law). Gamaliel also forbade husbands to annual divorce proceedings without their wives’ knowledge. Jewish tradition holds him in so much esteem that there came a saying: When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence died.”
Note: Although Pharisees have a bad rap in Christianity, it is important to remember that this is because Jesus was concerned about its abuses. Scholars tell us that the teachings of the Pharisees were much in accord with the message of Jesus. Some scholars have even speculated that Jesus himself was a Pharisee and thus his exposing of hypocrisy, etc. was especially contentious to the group (because one of their “own” was doing it.)
E.P. Blair speculates on the reasons Gamaliel counseled against extreme measures in regard to the Apostles. One certainly came from his usual tolerance and generosity of spirit. The other reason for tolerance may have arisen because much of what the Christians taught was at one with Pharisaic Judaism. Tolerance for the Christians thus also protected the Pharisaic position. His third reason, Blair speculates, likely came from true piety, glimpsing the purpose and power of God at work.
Question to consider:
Gamaliel suggested waiting and letting the Christians proceed in the belief that if they were doing God’s thing, then it would succeed and if they weren’t, the Christian movement would go away on its own. The Christian message could not be stopped – not even Roman persecution could get it to go away. But can that tolerant philosophy be applied in every situation?
What situations might call on Christians to take a stand against something?
How can a stand against something be done in a Christian manner?
What standards would we apply to such a “stand” to keep it Christian – that is, what would need to characterize our words or actions?
The Apostle Paul reports in Acts 22 that he was a student of Gamaliel. We have already been introduced to him earlier in the book of Acts. When Peter and the other Apostles were under scrutiny of some members of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel counseled moderation in treatment of them. He said that if what they were doing was not God’s will, it would die out on its own. If it is God’s will, the council would be in the untenable position of opposing God.
Concerns have been raised by Scholars as to the mention of Gamaliel as a teacher of Paul. The question has been, if Paul was the student of such a man, how did Paul become so intolerant and so vigorously persecute the Christians? His teachings also do not seem in accord with the style of rabbinic teaching. It doesn’t seem logical, but students do sometimes stray from both the teaching and spirit of their mentors.
Gamaliel was the grandson of a famous Rabbi – Hillel and the grandfather of Gamaliel II. His learning and generous spirit enhanced the prestige of liberal Pharisaism and effected its survival and vitality in serving the Jewish people after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Among other kindly and liberal actions he took was opening the amount of movements that was permitted to certain groups on the Sabbath. (Work, travel, etc. are not allowed on the Sabbath according to Jewish law). Gamaliel also forbade husbands to annual divorce proceedings without their wives’ knowledge. Jewish tradition holds him in so much esteem that there came a saying: When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence died.”
Note: Although Pharisees have a bad rap in Christianity, it is important to remember that this is because Jesus was concerned about its abuses. Scholars tell us that the teachings of the Pharisees were much in accord with the message of Jesus. Some scholars have even speculated that Jesus himself was a Pharisee and thus his exposing of hypocrisy, etc. was especially contentious to the group (because one of their “own” was doing it.)
E.P. Blair speculates on the reasons Gamaliel counseled against extreme measures in regard to the Apostles. One certainly came from his usual tolerance and generosity of spirit. The other reason for tolerance may have arisen because much of what the Christians taught was at one with Pharisaic Judaism. Tolerance for the Christians thus also protected the Pharisaic position. His third reason, Blair speculates, likely came from true piety, glimpsing the purpose and power of God at work.
Question to consider:
Gamaliel suggested waiting and letting the Christians proceed in the belief that if they were doing God’s thing, then it would succeed and if they weren’t, the Christian movement would go away on its own. The Christian message could not be stopped – not even Roman persecution could get it to go away. But can that tolerant philosophy be applied in every situation?
What situations might call on Christians to take a stand against something?
How can a stand against something be done in a Christian manner?
What standards would we apply to such a “stand” to keep it Christian – that is, what would need to characterize our words or actions?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Cleopas & his Fellow Disciple - Luke 24:13-35
Cleopas and his companion
On the same day of the resurrection, two followers of Jesus were walking to a village called Emmaus. This was a village about 7 miles from Jerusalem. One of these disciples is identified as Cleopas. The other is not given a name, although some scholars have speculated that it was his wife.
There is another woman, known as a follower of Jesus, who is known as the husband (or possibly the daughter or mother) of someone named Clopas. It is possible that Cleopas and Clopas are the same individual, but there is not enough information to determine this. Cleopas is a genuine Greek name and Clopas appears to have been of semitic origin. If Clopas and Cleopas are the same, then the wife’s name was Mary.
Luke only tells us that Cleopas and his companion were traveling to Emmaus on the same day as the resurrection. They had not left the city until after the news of the empty tomb had spread, for they are discussing all the things that had happened.
As they walked, a stranger came up to them. It was Jesus, but they didn’t recognize him. (Hardly surprising, considering that they’d been grieving for his death and most of Jesus’ followers weren’t sure, for a while, whether the news of the resurrection was too good to be true.
Jesus asked what they were discussing. Cleopas and his fellow disciple proceeded to tell him all about Jesus of Nazareth, how the chief priests and scribes had conspired for his death, and then got him crucified. They spoke of the hopes they had had that Jesus would be the one to redeem Israel. To add to the confusion, it was now the third day since his death, his body has disappeared, the women who’d gone to the tomb had seen angels telling that Jesus was alive.
The stranger proceeded to “explain” how these things had been necessary and of great meaning. Still, the two disciples did not recognize Jesus.
When they came to Emmaus, the stranger appeared to be continuing beyond the village, but the two disciples urged him to stay with them. It is unknown whether this was their home, or whether they were staying at an inn. But it was almost evening and they clearly wanted to continue their discussion with the stranger. When the time came to break bread, the stranger took it and blessed the bread. Only then, in the act that Jesus had done many times, did Cleopas and his fellow disciple recognize him. But then he vanished from their sight. The disciples are amazed, with the sense that they should have recognized him. After all, his wisdom had caused their hearts to burn within them
The two disciples jump up and immediately return to Jerusalem to tell the news. But before they can tell their story, they hear that Jesus has also appeared to Simon.
There is a courage in these two disciples that is interesting. Yet their direction is also interesting. They were going away from Jerusalem, after news of the resurrection. They could have been returning home. If they were husband and wife, they may have had responsibilities for children that needed attending. But for whatever reason, they were departing, still discussing the events that had passed.
Considering that Jesus had been killed by spiteful and powerful individuals, there was some risk in their telling, to a stranger, of the events. They expressed freely the fact that powerful religious leaders were responsible for this terrible thing. They spoke of the resurrection, which could have made them look ridiculous in the eyes of some people. But they openly spoke of these things. They had the joy of seeing the risen Jesus and carrying the news of his presence back to their fellow disciples, something they did immediately, not waiting for a more personally comfortable time.
What parallels could be drawn between the disciples of today and those on the road to Emmaus?
What characteristics about Cleopas and his fellow disciple would we want to emulate today?
On the same day of the resurrection, two followers of Jesus were walking to a village called Emmaus. This was a village about 7 miles from Jerusalem. One of these disciples is identified as Cleopas. The other is not given a name, although some scholars have speculated that it was his wife.
There is another woman, known as a follower of Jesus, who is known as the husband (or possibly the daughter or mother) of someone named Clopas. It is possible that Cleopas and Clopas are the same individual, but there is not enough information to determine this. Cleopas is a genuine Greek name and Clopas appears to have been of semitic origin. If Clopas and Cleopas are the same, then the wife’s name was Mary.
Luke only tells us that Cleopas and his companion were traveling to Emmaus on the same day as the resurrection. They had not left the city until after the news of the empty tomb had spread, for they are discussing all the things that had happened.
As they walked, a stranger came up to them. It was Jesus, but they didn’t recognize him. (Hardly surprising, considering that they’d been grieving for his death and most of Jesus’ followers weren’t sure, for a while, whether the news of the resurrection was too good to be true.
Jesus asked what they were discussing. Cleopas and his fellow disciple proceeded to tell him all about Jesus of Nazareth, how the chief priests and scribes had conspired for his death, and then got him crucified. They spoke of the hopes they had had that Jesus would be the one to redeem Israel. To add to the confusion, it was now the third day since his death, his body has disappeared, the women who’d gone to the tomb had seen angels telling that Jesus was alive.
The stranger proceeded to “explain” how these things had been necessary and of great meaning. Still, the two disciples did not recognize Jesus.
When they came to Emmaus, the stranger appeared to be continuing beyond the village, but the two disciples urged him to stay with them. It is unknown whether this was their home, or whether they were staying at an inn. But it was almost evening and they clearly wanted to continue their discussion with the stranger. When the time came to break bread, the stranger took it and blessed the bread. Only then, in the act that Jesus had done many times, did Cleopas and his fellow disciple recognize him. But then he vanished from their sight. The disciples are amazed, with the sense that they should have recognized him. After all, his wisdom had caused their hearts to burn within them
The two disciples jump up and immediately return to Jerusalem to tell the news. But before they can tell their story, they hear that Jesus has also appeared to Simon.
There is a courage in these two disciples that is interesting. Yet their direction is also interesting. They were going away from Jerusalem, after news of the resurrection. They could have been returning home. If they were husband and wife, they may have had responsibilities for children that needed attending. But for whatever reason, they were departing, still discussing the events that had passed.
Considering that Jesus had been killed by spiteful and powerful individuals, there was some risk in their telling, to a stranger, of the events. They expressed freely the fact that powerful religious leaders were responsible for this terrible thing. They spoke of the resurrection, which could have made them look ridiculous in the eyes of some people. But they openly spoke of these things. They had the joy of seeing the risen Jesus and carrying the news of his presence back to their fellow disciples, something they did immediately, not waiting for a more personally comfortable time.
What parallels could be drawn between the disciples of today and those on the road to Emmaus?
What characteristics about Cleopas and his fellow disciple would we want to emulate today?
Friday, April 2, 2010
Good Friday
On Good Friday, we remember what Jesus suffered. Most of the disciples ran away. A few managed to stay at the cross. There was Mary Magdalene, another Mary (Matthew says she was the mother of James and Joseph), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (see entry below.) John's list tells us that his mother was there (can any of us imagine what she felt in those moments?), his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene, and the "disciple whom he loved" (but unnamed, simply that this disciple was standing next to Jesus' mother). Others seems to have been there also, standing at a distance, but we don't know whom.
It is not surprising that the lists of those watching are different in the various gospels. In fact, if all the accounts had been exactly the same, we would wonder whether someone had deliberately fixed them to make them agree. No two reports of momentous events are ever exactly the same. The police are always suspicious if wtinesses agree too closely. The stories of the crucifixion and later of the resurrection, were shared from various points of view of those who experienced those events. The writers of the gospels were confident in the truth of what they relayed, and thus felt no need to change anyone's story to match anyone else's.
After the death of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea asked for his body and seems to have respectfully and lovingly laid it in his own tomb. But the tomb was not used for long!
It is not surprising that the lists of those watching are different in the various gospels. In fact, if all the accounts had been exactly the same, we would wonder whether someone had deliberately fixed them to make them agree. No two reports of momentous events are ever exactly the same. The police are always suspicious if wtinesses agree too closely. The stories of the crucifixion and later of the resurrection, were shared from various points of view of those who experienced those events. The writers of the gospels were confident in the truth of what they relayed, and thus felt no need to change anyone's story to match anyone else's.
After the death of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea asked for his body and seems to have respectfully and lovingly laid it in his own tomb. But the tomb was not used for long!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)