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?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
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!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
March 24, 2010 - Woman - Also at the Cross
Matthew 20:20 28
(Please consider signing in as a follower, so we can know you better)
In this scripture we can read the story of how the mother of James and John approached Jesus with a request. She asked for her sons to be accorded places of honor in Jesus’ kingdom, that they might sit on his right and his left hand. Jesus said (to the brothers) that they didn’t know what they were asking. Were they able to drink of the cup that Jesus himself was about to drink? They proclaimed themselves able. Jesus agreed that they would drink of it, but that he could not grant their request. Such a thing was only for God to give.
Both Mark and Matthew make it clear in the long run that the brothers were responsible for what happened. In fact, when Mark tells the story, he doesn’t even mention the mother. And Jesus identified them as the originators of the scheme because he addressed them alone. "Can you drink the cup of suffering that I am about to drink?"
The other disciples were angry with the brothers.
Anger could have come from many sources.
Some may have been angry because this broke their sense of community. When some people want to be more important than others in the group, true community is lost.
Then again, some of the disciples may have been jealous, wondering if Jesus might actually give James and John favored status. Some may have wished they had thought of it first.
Whatever the motives and feelings on either side, the reputation of James and John’s mother has been mixed. She is sometimes dismissed and barely noticed by the scholars. Or she may be dismissed as though she was just like a “stage mother” or a “sports father,” i.e. seeking to succeed through her sons.
Her name is usually not given. She is mostly known in the Bible in two ways--as the mother of James and John and elsewhere she is known as the wife of Zebedee. But Mark does give her name as Salome. Some scholars believe (from John 19:25) that she was a sister of Jesus’ mother, Mary. Other scholars do not agree. If she was Jesus’ aunt (which makes James & John his cousins), the gospel writers did not consider this necessary to specifically mention. Either it was so well known the information was considered redundant, or it was viewed as unimportant.
Salome’s husband, Zebedee, was a fishermen. There may have been some partnership with the brothers Peter and Andrew. Zebedee ran a business large enough to employ not only his sons, but servants as well, at least in the busy season. He was probably not wealthy. However, he seems to have been fairly prosperous.
James and John were working in their boat mending their nets when Jesus saw them. Mark tells us how Jesus called them, and they left their father, Zebedee, in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.
What is not recorded at the time of the call, but only mentioned later in passing, is that the wife of Zebedee also left her daily activities and traveled with Jesus through the countryside of Judea. We have no way of knowing whether her discipleship was before or after her sons decided to follow Jesus. She was one of a group of women who contributed financially to the traveling ministry of Jesus. Most people think of Jesus going about Palestine with the twelve men that we know as his disciples. But there was actually a much larger group of men and women (at times at least seventy), who were also disciples. The twelve were those chosen for special education and leadership roles. The fact that both brothers, James and John, were chosen, would seem to indicate a talented and dedicated family trend.
Zebedee seems to have remained behind. We are not told that he made any objection to his family's decision to follow Jesus, although some scholars speculate he may have done so. Such an episode, it is suggested, may have included some "thunderous" arguments. Jesus called James and John "the sons of thunder." Scholars are undecided on whether the "thunder" referred to Zebedee or to the volatile nature of his sons.
So, the wife of Zebedee was a follower of Jesus. We can speculate, a little, about her personality. She was a brave and courageous disciple. She apparently didn't hold grudges. Jesus was more important to her than personal feelings.
This can be speculated about her because we also know she was one of the few disciples who stood it out at Golgotha. She was one of the women who watched and grieved and remained faithful to the end.
It seems possible that the wife of Zebedee was the spiritual force in that household, the formative influence on her sons. We can speculate this because of how her sons reacted and by the faith of the mother herself.
Salome is probably remembered best (and somewhat negatively) for the time she asked Jesus to honor her sons. But she also stood at the cross. This involved considerable risk. She was also one of the women who went to the tomb and first heard the news of the resurrection.
Salome stepped out of the traditional role for women, embracing religious life in a way that her society did not see as necessarily appropriate for her gender. Jesus himself did not appear to care or concern himself about the restrictions placed on women.
What can you imagine Salome told her sons about those hours at the cross?
How does human ideas of honor and status fit with the Christian life?
(Please consider signing in as a follower, so we can know you better)
In this scripture we can read the story of how the mother of James and John approached Jesus with a request. She asked for her sons to be accorded places of honor in Jesus’ kingdom, that they might sit on his right and his left hand. Jesus said (to the brothers) that they didn’t know what they were asking. Were they able to drink of the cup that Jesus himself was about to drink? They proclaimed themselves able. Jesus agreed that they would drink of it, but that he could not grant their request. Such a thing was only for God to give.
Both Mark and Matthew make it clear in the long run that the brothers were responsible for what happened. In fact, when Mark tells the story, he doesn’t even mention the mother. And Jesus identified them as the originators of the scheme because he addressed them alone. "Can you drink the cup of suffering that I am about to drink?"
The other disciples were angry with the brothers.
Anger could have come from many sources.
Some may have been angry because this broke their sense of community. When some people want to be more important than others in the group, true community is lost.
Then again, some of the disciples may have been jealous, wondering if Jesus might actually give James and John favored status. Some may have wished they had thought of it first.
Whatever the motives and feelings on either side, the reputation of James and John’s mother has been mixed. She is sometimes dismissed and barely noticed by the scholars. Or she may be dismissed as though she was just like a “stage mother” or a “sports father,” i.e. seeking to succeed through her sons.
Her name is usually not given. She is mostly known in the Bible in two ways--as the mother of James and John and elsewhere she is known as the wife of Zebedee. But Mark does give her name as Salome. Some scholars believe (from John 19:25) that she was a sister of Jesus’ mother, Mary. Other scholars do not agree. If she was Jesus’ aunt (which makes James & John his cousins), the gospel writers did not consider this necessary to specifically mention. Either it was so well known the information was considered redundant, or it was viewed as unimportant.
Salome’s husband, Zebedee, was a fishermen. There may have been some partnership with the brothers Peter and Andrew. Zebedee ran a business large enough to employ not only his sons, but servants as well, at least in the busy season. He was probably not wealthy. However, he seems to have been fairly prosperous.
James and John were working in their boat mending their nets when Jesus saw them. Mark tells us how Jesus called them, and they left their father, Zebedee, in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.
What is not recorded at the time of the call, but only mentioned later in passing, is that the wife of Zebedee also left her daily activities and traveled with Jesus through the countryside of Judea. We have no way of knowing whether her discipleship was before or after her sons decided to follow Jesus. She was one of a group of women who contributed financially to the traveling ministry of Jesus. Most people think of Jesus going about Palestine with the twelve men that we know as his disciples. But there was actually a much larger group of men and women (at times at least seventy), who were also disciples. The twelve were those chosen for special education and leadership roles. The fact that both brothers, James and John, were chosen, would seem to indicate a talented and dedicated family trend.
Zebedee seems to have remained behind. We are not told that he made any objection to his family's decision to follow Jesus, although some scholars speculate he may have done so. Such an episode, it is suggested, may have included some "thunderous" arguments. Jesus called James and John "the sons of thunder." Scholars are undecided on whether the "thunder" referred to Zebedee or to the volatile nature of his sons.
So, the wife of Zebedee was a follower of Jesus. We can speculate, a little, about her personality. She was a brave and courageous disciple. She apparently didn't hold grudges. Jesus was more important to her than personal feelings.
This can be speculated about her because we also know she was one of the few disciples who stood it out at Golgotha. She was one of the women who watched and grieved and remained faithful to the end.
It seems possible that the wife of Zebedee was the spiritual force in that household, the formative influence on her sons. We can speculate this because of how her sons reacted and by the faith of the mother herself.
Salome is probably remembered best (and somewhat negatively) for the time she asked Jesus to honor her sons. But she also stood at the cross. This involved considerable risk. She was also one of the women who went to the tomb and first heard the news of the resurrection.
Salome stepped out of the traditional role for women, embracing religious life in a way that her society did not see as necessarily appropriate for her gender. Jesus himself did not appear to care or concern himself about the restrictions placed on women.
What can you imagine Salome told her sons about those hours at the cross?
How does human ideas of honor and status fit with the Christian life?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
March 17, 2010 - Joseph of Arimathea
Please consider signing in as a follower, so we can know you better.
This is posting one day early.
Joseph of Arimathea is not a completely “unsung” hero of the Bible. He is respected by Christians, and is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. In the West his feast day is – today - March 17! It is July 31 in the East.
All four gospel stories tell us that Joseph of Arimathea is the one who donated his personal tomb for the burial of Jesus after the crucifixion.
Matthew describes Joseph as a rich man (Matthew 27:57). This is further demonstrated by the fact that he had his own tomb. Note that he also had enough social standing to get a hearing with Pilate, the Roman procurator. Matthew 27:57 and Luke 23:50. He was from the town of Arimathea. The location of this town is not known for certain.
Luke and Mark tell us that Joseph was a member of the council. Mark says he was a respected member. Luke adds the detail that he had not agreed to the council’s plan and behavior regarding Jesus. Luke further notes that he was good and righteous, a man waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. Matthew tells us that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. John also states this, but says his discipleship was in secret. But at the time of Jesus’ death, the gospel story tells us that he went boldly to Pilate so he could request the body of Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia presents the believable scenario that Joseph’s faith and love were “quickened” by the crucifixion, along with the courage of Nicodemus.
Some commentators have wanted to suggest that Joseph was only concerned about ritual purity, i.e. leaving the body unburied over the Sabbath. Since, however, he did not show the same interest in the bodies of the two thieves, and as he laid the body of Jesus in his own tomb, it is hard to support any supposition except that Joseph was paying an individual and heartfelt respect for Jesus himself. One scholar says that in a sense, Joseph was bringing Jesus into his own family.
Once Pilate was satisfied that Jesus was indeed dead, he gave permission. Joseph purchased fine linens, according to Mark, and went to Golgotha to bring Jesus down from the cross. Nicodemus, another somewhat secret follower of Jesus, assisted him. They applied myrrh and aloes to the body. The tomb was new and had never been used (and wouldn’t be used long this time, as it turned out!). It had been cut out of rock.
Some scholars believe that it could have been Joseph who provided the details of Jesus’ trial and other deliberations of the council. If so, it would appear that he was modest and did not over-burden the account with the story of his own protests.
It seem significant also that Joseph, though wealthy, did not send others to take care of Jesus’ body. He took care of it himself.
During the middle ages, Joseph became connected by Arthurian legends to the Holy Grail and to Britain. The manuscripts from earlier centuries do not attribute the conversion of Britain too him, but later Arthurian works say he traveled to Britain and became the first Christian bishop there.
The Gospel of Nicodemus, which is appended to the “Acts of Pilate” gives non-scriptural additions to the story. In it, the members of the council were angry at Joseph for burying the body of Jesus. He in turn was angry with them because they had not repented for what they had done. Then they imprisoned him, whereupon he had a vision of Jesus appearing to him. Other legends, in addition to the Grail and the earlier conversion of Britain, include Joseph setting his walking stick on the ground as he slept. It miraculously took root, leafed out and blossomed as the “Glastonbury thorn.” The same story is told of the Anglo-Saxon saint Etheldreda. Another legend claims that Joseph was Jesus’ mother’s uncle. That he was a tin merchant (connected with Britain because of its tin mines), that he had taken Jesus to Britain as a boy, etc.
These, again, are all legends that collected around the person of Joseph of Arimathea. The gospel stories are honor enough.
In what ways can we follow in Joseph of Arimathea’s footsteps?
Joseph of Arimathea showed courage in going to Pilate. What aspects of Christian living require our courage today?
This is posting one day early.
Joseph of Arimathea is not a completely “unsung” hero of the Bible. He is respected by Christians, and is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. In the West his feast day is – today - March 17! It is July 31 in the East.
All four gospel stories tell us that Joseph of Arimathea is the one who donated his personal tomb for the burial of Jesus after the crucifixion.
Matthew describes Joseph as a rich man (Matthew 27:57). This is further demonstrated by the fact that he had his own tomb. Note that he also had enough social standing to get a hearing with Pilate, the Roman procurator. Matthew 27:57 and Luke 23:50. He was from the town of Arimathea. The location of this town is not known for certain.
Luke and Mark tell us that Joseph was a member of the council. Mark says he was a respected member. Luke adds the detail that he had not agreed to the council’s plan and behavior regarding Jesus. Luke further notes that he was good and righteous, a man waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. Matthew tells us that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. John also states this, but says his discipleship was in secret. But at the time of Jesus’ death, the gospel story tells us that he went boldly to Pilate so he could request the body of Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia presents the believable scenario that Joseph’s faith and love were “quickened” by the crucifixion, along with the courage of Nicodemus.
Some commentators have wanted to suggest that Joseph was only concerned about ritual purity, i.e. leaving the body unburied over the Sabbath. Since, however, he did not show the same interest in the bodies of the two thieves, and as he laid the body of Jesus in his own tomb, it is hard to support any supposition except that Joseph was paying an individual and heartfelt respect for Jesus himself. One scholar says that in a sense, Joseph was bringing Jesus into his own family.
Once Pilate was satisfied that Jesus was indeed dead, he gave permission. Joseph purchased fine linens, according to Mark, and went to Golgotha to bring Jesus down from the cross. Nicodemus, another somewhat secret follower of Jesus, assisted him. They applied myrrh and aloes to the body. The tomb was new and had never been used (and wouldn’t be used long this time, as it turned out!). It had been cut out of rock.
Some scholars believe that it could have been Joseph who provided the details of Jesus’ trial and other deliberations of the council. If so, it would appear that he was modest and did not over-burden the account with the story of his own protests.
It seem significant also that Joseph, though wealthy, did not send others to take care of Jesus’ body. He took care of it himself.
During the middle ages, Joseph became connected by Arthurian legends to the Holy Grail and to Britain. The manuscripts from earlier centuries do not attribute the conversion of Britain too him, but later Arthurian works say he traveled to Britain and became the first Christian bishop there.
The Gospel of Nicodemus, which is appended to the “Acts of Pilate” gives non-scriptural additions to the story. In it, the members of the council were angry at Joseph for burying the body of Jesus. He in turn was angry with them because they had not repented for what they had done. Then they imprisoned him, whereupon he had a vision of Jesus appearing to him. Other legends, in addition to the Grail and the earlier conversion of Britain, include Joseph setting his walking stick on the ground as he slept. It miraculously took root, leafed out and blossomed as the “Glastonbury thorn.” The same story is told of the Anglo-Saxon saint Etheldreda. Another legend claims that Joseph was Jesus’ mother’s uncle. That he was a tin merchant (connected with Britain because of its tin mines), that he had taken Jesus to Britain as a boy, etc.
These, again, are all legends that collected around the person of Joseph of Arimathea. The gospel stories are honor enough.
In what ways can we follow in Joseph of Arimathea’s footsteps?
Joseph of Arimathea showed courage in going to Pilate. What aspects of Christian living require our courage today?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
March 10, 2010 - Ananias
Bible Study – 03-10-2010 Read: Acts 9:10-19
There is much known about certain people in the Bible, little known about others. Yet, there are people for whom the brief details of what we know are sufficient for us to admire them.
One example is Ananias. (There are two men of that name known in the book of Acts. The subject of this study is the one mentioned second. That is, he is not the Ananias who was the husband of Sapphira, both of whom are remembered for lying, rather than being known for qualities we would admire.)
We know very little about the man Ananias. One tradition says he was a shoemaker, but there are no facts to back up the tradition.
He lived in Damascus. Scholars think he could have moved there because of the persecutions in Jerusalem against the Christians.
Ananias is mentioned only twice in the Bible, in connection with the same event. He was involved with the conversion of St. Paul, originally known by his Hebrew name of Saul.
Paul, in telling the story, says that Ananias was a good man, who was devout and respected by the Jewish community. If you are not going to have very much remembered about you, that's still a fine summary of your life.
There are a few things we can probably surmise about Ananias from the story.
He may have been a quiet man. He didn’t see himself as especially courageous, which was why he may have left Jerusalem to escape persecution.
We often admire the daring folk, the ones who practically seemed to embrace the Roman arena and the lions and the gladiators. But there were other Christians who were good and devout and who just wanted to live the best they could and walk in the path that Jesus taught. So they stayed out of the way of the persecutors and kept hold of their faith in Jesus.
Glorifying the martyrs too much was even a bit of a problem in the early church. Some early church leaders felt they had to warn Christians not to seek for martyrdom. The church needed those who got caught and wouldn’t recant, and it needed those who taught and witnessed and loved and served and lived.
Ananias was one of these who survived and served. We are never told, at least, that he was ever martyred. If he ever was martyred, it wasn’t because he was someone who rushed headlong into danger. There are few traditions about him and what there are only developed much later. So it seems safe to say he was a quiet, unassuming man, cautious yet devout.
The Christians in Damascus had likely heard that Saul was on the way.
Saul was a fearsome opponent of the Christians. He was extremely intelligent, very organized, exceptionally efficient, overwhelmingly energetic for the things in which he believed. That’s a dangerous combination to face in an enemy.
Some of the Christians in Damascus had almost certainly escaped from Jerusalem because of Paul’s persecutions, so they were familiar with him and his tactics. It was not good news to hear that he was headed their way.
Then Ananias hears the voice of Jesus in a vision. This tells us that he was a spiritual man who was open to hearing God speak.
He heard Jesus saying that he should go and help Saul. This was obviously a frightening proposition, so, in a sense, he told Jesus about Saul and what kind of man he was. This may be interpreted as a statement that he would rather not do what Jesus was asking.
But Jesus again said, "Go."
Ananias got up and went. This also tells us that he was a spiritual man who sincerely wanted to do what God asked of him. He may have been afraid, but his love for Jesus must have given him courage.
Ananias found things as it had been explained to him. He went to the street called Straight. He entered the house and found his enemy, and he called his enemy his brother. In a sermon, Paul later gave a fuller version of what Ananias said to him that day.
After helping him regain his sight, Ananias told him, "The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice, for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name."
As a young man, Paul had seen the Christian, Stephen, forgiving those who were killing him. Now, blind, probably scared, still a proud and forceful man, he encountered another Christian. Paul had been out to persecute people like Ananias. Yet this man still came to him and called him brother. The “shoemaker” must have been a powerful introduction to the Christian faith.
To read another presentation about Paul and Ananias, go to the following:
www.gbgm-umc.org/dellville/sermons/sm2001april29.htm
This is a page at the website General Board of Global Missions of the United Methodist Church.
What are the qualities that make Ananias a Christian hero? (Think in terms of an epitaph, or writing an obituary about him, what would a Christian writer say?)
What influence do you imagine that Ananias had upon Paul?
There is much known about certain people in the Bible, little known about others. Yet, there are people for whom the brief details of what we know are sufficient for us to admire them.
One example is Ananias. (There are two men of that name known in the book of Acts. The subject of this study is the one mentioned second. That is, he is not the Ananias who was the husband of Sapphira, both of whom are remembered for lying, rather than being known for qualities we would admire.)
We know very little about the man Ananias. One tradition says he was a shoemaker, but there are no facts to back up the tradition.
He lived in Damascus. Scholars think he could have moved there because of the persecutions in Jerusalem against the Christians.
Ananias is mentioned only twice in the Bible, in connection with the same event. He was involved with the conversion of St. Paul, originally known by his Hebrew name of Saul.
Paul, in telling the story, says that Ananias was a good man, who was devout and respected by the Jewish community. If you are not going to have very much remembered about you, that's still a fine summary of your life.
There are a few things we can probably surmise about Ananias from the story.
He may have been a quiet man. He didn’t see himself as especially courageous, which was why he may have left Jerusalem to escape persecution.
We often admire the daring folk, the ones who practically seemed to embrace the Roman arena and the lions and the gladiators. But there were other Christians who were good and devout and who just wanted to live the best they could and walk in the path that Jesus taught. So they stayed out of the way of the persecutors and kept hold of their faith in Jesus.
Glorifying the martyrs too much was even a bit of a problem in the early church. Some early church leaders felt they had to warn Christians not to seek for martyrdom. The church needed those who got caught and wouldn’t recant, and it needed those who taught and witnessed and loved and served and lived.
Ananias was one of these who survived and served. We are never told, at least, that he was ever martyred. If he ever was martyred, it wasn’t because he was someone who rushed headlong into danger. There are few traditions about him and what there are only developed much later. So it seems safe to say he was a quiet, unassuming man, cautious yet devout.
The Christians in Damascus had likely heard that Saul was on the way.
Saul was a fearsome opponent of the Christians. He was extremely intelligent, very organized, exceptionally efficient, overwhelmingly energetic for the things in which he believed. That’s a dangerous combination to face in an enemy.
Some of the Christians in Damascus had almost certainly escaped from Jerusalem because of Paul’s persecutions, so they were familiar with him and his tactics. It was not good news to hear that he was headed their way.
Then Ananias hears the voice of Jesus in a vision. This tells us that he was a spiritual man who was open to hearing God speak.
He heard Jesus saying that he should go and help Saul. This was obviously a frightening proposition, so, in a sense, he told Jesus about Saul and what kind of man he was. This may be interpreted as a statement that he would rather not do what Jesus was asking.
But Jesus again said, "Go."
Ananias got up and went. This also tells us that he was a spiritual man who sincerely wanted to do what God asked of him. He may have been afraid, but his love for Jesus must have given him courage.
Ananias found things as it had been explained to him. He went to the street called Straight. He entered the house and found his enemy, and he called his enemy his brother. In a sermon, Paul later gave a fuller version of what Ananias said to him that day.
After helping him regain his sight, Ananias told him, "The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice, for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name."
As a young man, Paul had seen the Christian, Stephen, forgiving those who were killing him. Now, blind, probably scared, still a proud and forceful man, he encountered another Christian. Paul had been out to persecute people like Ananias. Yet this man still came to him and called him brother. The “shoemaker” must have been a powerful introduction to the Christian faith.
To read another presentation about Paul and Ananias, go to the following:
www.gbgm-umc.org/dellville/sermons/sm2001april29.htm
This is a page at the website General Board of Global Missions of the United Methodist Church.
What are the qualities that make Ananias a Christian hero? (Think in terms of an epitaph, or writing an obituary about him, what would a Christian writer say?)
What influence do you imagine that Ananias had upon Paul?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
March 3, 2010 - Philip the Apostle
Philip the Apostle – Some scriptural mentions: John 1:43 John 6:5-7 John 12:20
In the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke), Philip is mentioned only in the lists of the apostles. We hear more about him in John, who tells us that he is one of the first to be called. After his call, he brings Nathanael to Jesus. This is the occasion when Nathanael asks, in some disbelief, whether anything good can come from Nazareth. Instead of arguing the issue, Philip simply invites him to come and see.
When Jesus was preaching to the multitude and the rest of the disciples were fussing about sending the crowds away to find food, it is Philip who comes forward with a boy who has five loaves and two fish to share.
There must have been something very approachable in Philip, for a number of “Greeks” also came to him to say that they wanted to meet Jesus.
The “Greeks” mentioned here might have been Jewish people who lived in Greece, although the word (in the original manuscripts) that identifies them would seem to indicate that they were Gentile Greeks. It was said that they were in Jerusalem for the festival. This tells us that they were could have been worshippers of God. If they were Gentiles doing this, they were God-fearers, who were Gentile who had been converted to worship of God.
God-fearers - The Israelites who lived outside of the area, then known more or less as Israel, were in population in far greater numbers than those who lived inside Israel. They are sometimes known as Hellenistic Jews or Jews of the Diaspora. They maintained their monotheistic faith, but were more liberal than those who lived in Israel. They were missionary-minded and had witnessed to their faith in God to the Gentiles. Many Gentiles had become convinced that there was only one God. They were attracted by the spiritual and moral nature of the Jewish faith. But they saw no point in the dietary laws and abhorred circumcision, so most could not be considered full converts. The Hellenistic Jews allowed these ‘God-fearers’ to worship with them in the synagogues. This would generally not have been allowed in Israel. It is possible that these Greeks were either Hellenistic Jewish people, or were God-fearers.
It may have helped that Philip is a Greek name. Many Jewish people of that time had two names, one Hebrew and one Greek or otherwise familiar to the Gentile world. If Philip did have a Hebrew name, at some point he obviously had chosen to be known primarily by his Greek name. This could have been a significant fact to the Greeks. Many orthodox Jewish people who lived in Israel would not associate with Gentiles, considering them unclean unless they were fully converted to Judaism, which entailed circumcision (abhorrent to the Roman world), and the dietary laws. Even then, the converts might find acceptance difficult to receive by the Orthodox. But since Philip commonly used his Greek name, they may have felt more comfortable coming to him.
After being approached by the Greeks, Philip brought the news to Andrew (Andrew is also a Greek name), and together they went to tell Jesus.
The fact that Philip was from Bethsaida (The location of this town is not known for certain) is specifically mentioned in connection with the Greeks approaching him.
The fact that the Greeks asked to see Jesus was likely a sign that they were interested in becoming his disciples. Jesus and Andrew were the first to receive the invitation to discipleship directly from Jesus and now they are the ones who are first to hear of non-Jewish interest in him. The response of Jesus was to lay out the difficulties of discipleship, as well as its fruitfulness. This is not a rejection of non-Jewish followers. He did the same on a few other occasions as well. Being a disciple could not be a casual hobby, a brief enthusiasm, or an intellectual pursuit. It takes much more than that, and because it does, it gives more back in fruitfulness and fullness of life.
The stories about Philip show a man who brings people to Jesus. He was approachable and obviously a person that people respected. Although we are not told this specifically, his actions and manner must have shown integrity and faith, or no one would have been interested in Philip as an introduction to Jesus. (It is reminiscent of the missionary who went to a small village in India. He handed out Bibles in their language and lived there a while. Finally he went to one of the village elder and asked whether the people were reading their Bibles. The elder said, ‘no, they are reading you first.’
Philip the Apostle is not the same Philip the Evangelist in the book of Acts. Yet Philip the Apostle is known for bringing people to Jesus, and in living a life that helped interest people in being disciples.
How can Christians today follow in the footsteps of Philip?
In today’s world, what qualities of living would make people more interested in Jesus?
In the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke), Philip is mentioned only in the lists of the apostles. We hear more about him in John, who tells us that he is one of the first to be called. After his call, he brings Nathanael to Jesus. This is the occasion when Nathanael asks, in some disbelief, whether anything good can come from Nazareth. Instead of arguing the issue, Philip simply invites him to come and see.
When Jesus was preaching to the multitude and the rest of the disciples were fussing about sending the crowds away to find food, it is Philip who comes forward with a boy who has five loaves and two fish to share.
There must have been something very approachable in Philip, for a number of “Greeks” also came to him to say that they wanted to meet Jesus.
The “Greeks” mentioned here might have been Jewish people who lived in Greece, although the word (in the original manuscripts) that identifies them would seem to indicate that they were Gentile Greeks. It was said that they were in Jerusalem for the festival. This tells us that they were could have been worshippers of God. If they were Gentiles doing this, they were God-fearers, who were Gentile who had been converted to worship of God.
God-fearers - The Israelites who lived outside of the area, then known more or less as Israel, were in population in far greater numbers than those who lived inside Israel. They are sometimes known as Hellenistic Jews or Jews of the Diaspora. They maintained their monotheistic faith, but were more liberal than those who lived in Israel. They were missionary-minded and had witnessed to their faith in God to the Gentiles. Many Gentiles had become convinced that there was only one God. They were attracted by the spiritual and moral nature of the Jewish faith. But they saw no point in the dietary laws and abhorred circumcision, so most could not be considered full converts. The Hellenistic Jews allowed these ‘God-fearers’ to worship with them in the synagogues. This would generally not have been allowed in Israel. It is possible that these Greeks were either Hellenistic Jewish people, or were God-fearers.
It may have helped that Philip is a Greek name. Many Jewish people of that time had two names, one Hebrew and one Greek or otherwise familiar to the Gentile world. If Philip did have a Hebrew name, at some point he obviously had chosen to be known primarily by his Greek name. This could have been a significant fact to the Greeks. Many orthodox Jewish people who lived in Israel would not associate with Gentiles, considering them unclean unless they were fully converted to Judaism, which entailed circumcision (abhorrent to the Roman world), and the dietary laws. Even then, the converts might find acceptance difficult to receive by the Orthodox. But since Philip commonly used his Greek name, they may have felt more comfortable coming to him.
After being approached by the Greeks, Philip brought the news to Andrew (Andrew is also a Greek name), and together they went to tell Jesus.
The fact that Philip was from Bethsaida (The location of this town is not known for certain) is specifically mentioned in connection with the Greeks approaching him.
The fact that the Greeks asked to see Jesus was likely a sign that they were interested in becoming his disciples. Jesus and Andrew were the first to receive the invitation to discipleship directly from Jesus and now they are the ones who are first to hear of non-Jewish interest in him. The response of Jesus was to lay out the difficulties of discipleship, as well as its fruitfulness. This is not a rejection of non-Jewish followers. He did the same on a few other occasions as well. Being a disciple could not be a casual hobby, a brief enthusiasm, or an intellectual pursuit. It takes much more than that, and because it does, it gives more back in fruitfulness and fullness of life.
The stories about Philip show a man who brings people to Jesus. He was approachable and obviously a person that people respected. Although we are not told this specifically, his actions and manner must have shown integrity and faith, or no one would have been interested in Philip as an introduction to Jesus. (It is reminiscent of the missionary who went to a small village in India. He handed out Bibles in their language and lived there a while. Finally he went to one of the village elder and asked whether the people were reading their Bibles. The elder said, ‘no, they are reading you first.’
Philip the Apostle is not the same Philip the Evangelist in the book of Acts. Yet Philip the Apostle is known for bringing people to Jesus, and in living a life that helped interest people in being disciples.
How can Christians today follow in the footsteps of Philip?
In today’s world, what qualities of living would make people more interested in Jesus?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)