Archive for category Acts
Acts 9.2 as an indicator that women were leaders in the early Church
Posted by Joel in Acts, Church Government on August 3, 2010
Thanks to TC for the link to Wright’s sermon from which I draw this post.
and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. – Acts 9:2 NASB
He requested letters addressed to the synagogues in Damascus, asking for their cooperation in the arrest of any followers of the Way he found there. He wanted to bring them- both men and women– back to Jerusalem in chains. – Acts 9:2 NLT
The historical situation is that in that culture of the time, women were generally left unmolested in such cases. Wright cites the example that the women in the Gospels were seen at the crucifixion, although they were known to be followers of Christ, while the men feared punitive action. Yet, here Paul is given express permission to tackle the growing Way with brute force, imprisoning both men and women. Why? Wright speculates, citing Kenneth E. Baily, that it was because women in the early leadership positions along side men.
I’ve found it difficult to quickly substantiate Dr. Bailey’s assertions that women weren’t targeted by the opposing side, well, not for death anyway; however, while reading of some Josephus’ account in his Wars (3.300-) I noticed that many times, women and children were simply enslaved or left alone. If this is the case, then targeting women along side of men, especially by Saul of Tarsus wouldn’t be the culture norm.
Except for the Sicarri. They were a terrorist group which quickly shed Jewish blood, even Jonathan the high priest, for impiety or not resisting Roman rule, according to Josephus. They operated in the years before the destruction of the Temple, trying to expunge the Romans from Israel. They had no qualms about killing women and children, of which numbered 700 or so dead when the Sicarri invaded En Geddi. It is interesting, that before Josephus, the word can only be found in connection with the Apostle Paul,
“Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” Acts 21:38
“Aren’t you the Egyptian who led a rebellion some time ago and took 4,000 members of the Assassins out into the desert?” Acts 21:38
For others who may interested in Sicarri in Josephus, you may wish to purchase this book.
But, if then-Saul of Tarsus was actually targeting women along side of men, then it is possible, given the culture surroundings, that he considering the women as leaders. The cement to this argument comes from the fact that Luke expressly mentioned ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας in Acts 9 as well as in Acts 22, as Paul recounts the story.
Acts 2.38 and Acts 3.19 – Baptismal Parallels
Recently, I was discussing the issue of baptism with a friend, specifically, paedobaptism, but it turned to baptismal regeneration.
Examining Peter’s Speech in Acts 2
The speech given by the Apostle Peter in Acts 2 is the first speech given by disciples of the ascended Christ – the first of the new community of believers. It is important, historically, to have this speech which officially delivers the rules of the community to take place on Pentecost. Just as the Gospels establish that Christ is the Passover, this speech served to establish that this was the Church’s Pentecost. It mimicked the scene played out in Exodus 19, and indeed, the later writer of Hebrews notes the comparison as well (Hebrews 12.18-24). Not withstanding the historical significance of placing this speech at the beginning of Christian history we find an attempt at redefining the Hebrew writings in light of the new community and connecting certain aspects of the Jewish Scriptures to salvation and thus the new community.
Goulder’s Presuppositions on Acts
I am currently reading through Anthony Le Donne’s book, The Historiographical Jesus, and came across his entry into presuppositions, which he quotes Goulder on Acts. Michael Goulder laid down two presuppositions for the study of Act in his 1964 work, Type and History in Acts:
Acts 8 – Scriptures over Miracles
Humanity, as a whole, seeks things larger then themselves.
Those professing the name of Christ seek evidence of God supernaturally manifested before them, claiming to know God only by the miracles that He performs.
Yes, for all of those that Christ miraculously fed, only 120 made it to the upper room on the day of Pentecost. How many souls were gained by miracles?
In the first historical document of the Church, we read in chapter 8 concerning two men: one a sorcerer and one a eunuch.
In the city of Samaria, the Gospel of Jesus Christ had come, preached by Philip (8.5; 12). Along with this Name, as was apt in the early Church, things happened:
And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. (Acts 8:6-7 NKJV)
There was a man, by the name of Simon, who practicing magic, and bewitched the city as to his might, but when he saw real power, he craved it. As the city fell to the Gospel, Simon too believed (but in what?):
Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:13 NKJV)
Upon baptism – not having received the holy Spirit as of yet, Simon continued with Philip, but saw only the miracles. I have to wonder what heed was given to the Scriptures. Simon saw the power, the ‘great power’ of God, the miracles and the signs that accompanied the Preacher, but did he ever hear the Word of God being preached to the city?
When news returned to Jerusalem, the Apostolic Council (of if you like, Bishop Board) sent Peter and John – those that had ran to the tomb of the Saviour – to bring the holy Spirit. (Only baptism in the name of Jesus Christ had taken place, but the Spirit was yet to fall.
The Apostles came, the Spirit fell, and Simon retreated to his flesh – he desired the authority to give the holy Spirit as he perceived the Apostles to have done. Instantly, Peter rebuked him, saying:
“Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.” (Acts 8:20-23 NKJV)
Let us not dwell, only note, that Simon’s serious of sin came on this side of the flood waters of baptism. Who is to say that if Simon had first asked Philip for this, the response to a sinner would have been easier? Peter knew that the man’s heart was not right – but he didn’t know if the sin could be forgiven him. (Compare this with John 20.23) Simon who believed, focused only on the miracles and power that he saw, but did not head the word of the Gospel.
Philip, after Samaria, is found by divine command, walking south to Gaza. There, he saw a great caravan of the chief of the Queen of Ethiopia’s house who had been to Jerusalem, no doubt for the Passover. It was during this season which people would bring their copy of Scriptures to the Temple to correct any errors that had crept in due to copying. This tells us that this Eunuch was at least someone who believed in the Jewish Scriptures – although by Mosaic Law he could not participate.
Philip was commanded not to just join up with the caravan, but to overtake it. As he was running, he noticed the Eunuch reading, and after a little conversation, was invited up into the chariot to help explain the Scriptures. Reading from the Servant Song in Isaiah, Philip was able to preach the Gospel. The man, realizing that he was in sin, but that he could now leave that reproach in the southern Palestinian desert, and asked for baptism.
He believed not by power or might, but by the word of God. Paul would say in Romans 10.17 that Faith comes from what is heard when what is heard, is the Word of God. Miracles entertain, but for the Faithful, the Scriptures are the bread of life by which we know God, and move towards God.
Theophilus and Bible Translation – Should names/titles be translated?
Posted by Joel in Acts, Bible Translation on April 18, 2008
First, allow me to state that I am new to Bible Translation, having only worked in this area for some two years. I still hope to be new some 60 years from now.
Here is a question that is on my mind. Granted, I have not yet begun Luke-Acts, but this is still something that is useful for other uses.
Luke-Acts (I presume these books written by the same author to the same ‘person’) is addressed to one by the name of Theophilus. Would it be implausible to translate the ‘name’ directly to it’s base meaning instead of mere transliteration?
Luke 1.3
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
εδοξεν καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε
It can be translated as ‘friend of God’ or ‘beloved of God’, or as Robertson suggests, ‘God-lover’. It is my opinion, and I owe much of that opinion to Peter Doble’s book, the Paradox of Salvation, that Luke-Acts was written with a central theologia crucis in mind. Could the addressee be a part of that plan?
From Wikipedia comes this possible suggestion as to who Theophilus was:
A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37–41 A.D. In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple. Adherents claim that Luke’s Gospel was targeted at Sadducee readers. This might explain a few features of Luke. He begins the story with an account of Zacharias the righteous priest who had a Temple vision of an angel (1:5-25). Luke quickly moves to account Mary‘s purification (niddah), Jesus‘ Temple redemption (pidyon ha-ben) rituals (2:21-39), and then to Jesus Temple teaching when he was twelve (2:46). He makes no mention of Caiaphas’ role in Jesus’ crucifixion and emphasizes Jesus’ literal resurrection (24:39), including an ascension into heaven as a realm of spiritual existence (24:52; Acts 1:1). Luke also seems to stress Jesus’ arguments with the Sadducees on points like legal grounds for divorce, the existence of angels, spirits, and an afterlife (Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead). If this was the case then Luke is trying to use Jesus’ rebuttals and teachings to break down Theophilus’ Sadducean philosophy. One could also look at Luke’s Gospel as an allegorical (רֶמֶז remez) reference to Jesus as “the man called the Branch” prophesied in Zechariah 3:8; 6:12-13, who is the ultimate high priest foreshadowed by the Levitical priesthood.
And it could be, and let’s say it was (I don’t believe it, but…). That Theophilus is long dead, and yet the audience for Luke-Acts remains. Would be it acceptable to translated Theophilus to ‘Friend/Beloved of God’?
Really, I guess no matter what, the audience to Luke-Acts remains, so shouldn’t the addressee be the present community, that of the Friends of God? Or, incase of the Church, the Beloved of God?
To be fair, to follow that line, should we then discard other names as addressee’s? I wouldn’t so, since Timothy and Titus and others are recognized as actually existing people or places, etc… Theophilus, since I don’t buy the above suggestion, does not fall into that category.
I would recommend translating in this case the name to the base meaning, and not attempting a mere translation.
I can see Luke saying, “O Friend of God, let me tell you more about the things that happened after Jesus did begin to do and teach.”
