Two Women of Philippi

There were so many good stories in the Come Follow Me reading for this week. One that podcasters discussed were the two women Paul met in Troas. The first was Lydia, a presumably successful business woman who produced the expensive purple dye valued by the Romans. In Acts 16:14-15 we learn that she "attended to the things which were spoken by Paul" and that after she was baptised, she "constrained" Paul and his companions to stay at her house. Two of the podcasters I listened to this week contrasted Lydia with another female we meet in the very next verse. She was possessed of a devil, which gave her the ability of soothsaying. She followed Paul and Silas around proclaiming that they were "servants of the most high God". Luke tells us that she was so annoying that Paul finally cast the spirit out of her, illiminating her value as a soothsayer, and angering her masters. The podcasters used Lydia as an example of the righteous believers, and the soothsayer as an example of the opposition.

I read the story a little differently. Yes, Lydia was awesome and her household became the main center of Jesus worship in the region. The Soothsayer, however, I saw as a victim, rather than an opponent. The scriptures call her a "damsel" (v. 16). The Greek word is παιδίσκην which suggests a young female slave. This term would not normally be used for a married woman, so she was probably just a teenager. When I read this passage this week, the term that came into my head was "human trafficking'". This girl's masters were exploiting her demonic possession for their own gain. The Soothsayer is a foil for Lydia not because Lydia was righteous and supportive of Paul and Silas, and the Soothsayer was opposed to them, but because Lydia was an independent woman of power and substance, and the Soothsayer was a young helpless girl in captivity. I really liked the fact that Paul finally released her from her possession, so that she could be possibly free from her masters and able to go forward with her life.

Jesus's half brother, James

 I found myself fascinated by James, the half brother of Jesus this week.  It is interesting to me that in John 7:4-5, James challenges Jesus to show himself openly as the Messiah.  John comments that this suggestion shows that James didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ. I don't think that you can extrapolate that from the one comment, but John clearly knew James better than I do, so maybe John was, at that time, doubting his older half brother's divine mission.   

Then, when Jesus was hanging on the cross, Jesus asks John to take care of his mother. (John 19:26).  In one way, this makes sense.  As the oldest son it would have been his responsibility to look after and financially take care of his mother.  Since he knew he would soon be dead, he was making sure his responsibility to his mother was going to be met.  John would take his place as his mother's caregiver.  

That is all well and good, but why would Jesus need John to take care of his mom, when it was to James, his oldest half brother, that the responsibility would have naturally passed.  James was clearly still living. Did John have ulterior motives for including this detail in the narrative.  Was he disparaging James, or emphasizing his own close relationship with Jesus as he did throughout the book by calling himself "the disciple Jesus loved."  

A few years later we suddenly see James as the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem.  As I read Acts 15 this week it seemed to me that James was acting, not only as the leader of the Jerusalem branch, but as the presiding authority at the meeting.  Here are my evidences:

• When Paul and Barnabas were faced with the issue of how much gentile converts had to obey the Mosaic Law they felt they needed to go to Jerusalem to settle the questions with the "apostles". (15:2)
• When they arrived at Jerusalem they talked with "apostles and elders". (v 6).  We know who the apostles were (mostly) at this point,  but who were the "elders".  Could James have been considered an "elder" since he was the oldest remaining son of Mary but wasn't, as far as we know, an apostle.
• When Peter stands up, he reminds them of his revelation about the Gentiles and his experience with Cornelius, but that doesn't settle the question. (v. 11) He seems to be one more argument in favor of not requiring conversion to Judaism instead of the ultimate authority in the church. 
• Ultimately it was James, not Peter, who had the final say on the matter.  It was also James who came up with the way it would be implemented.  All the others followed his lead. (v 19-22)

 I wonder if, for a while, James was actually the main leader of the Jesus movement.  It would have made sense in the Jewish culture, for leadership of a group to pass from one brother to another. Even at this time they were still very patriarchal.  (An example of the importance of family succession, look at the Herodian Dynasty during the New Testament era.)

I wonder if this fact has been passed over by history because, ultimately, it was Peter who Catholics recognized as the founder of their church and the true successor to Jesus, not his brother.  Maybe there was a little revisionist history going on here.  Or maybe, it just so happened that because of persecution Peter had to leave Jerusalem, and James did not.  Therefore he became the church leader in Jerusalem, but Peter was still recognized as the chief apostle, as is the acepted narrative. I will pay attention as I read on, to see if there is more support for one idea over the other.  

Saul-Paul, what's in a name?

 In Come Follow Me this week we are introduced to the man named Saul, who became the beloved apostle Paul. Many people believe that Jesus named Saul, "Paul," just as he renamed Simon, "Peter," but there is no scriptural evidence for this. Most likely Saul gave himself the name of Paul. The easiest explanation for Saul changing his name to Paul is that he wanted to fit in better with the gentiles to whom he was called as a missionary.  When my daughter served a mission in Taiwan, she was given a Chinese name that would be easy to understand and pronounce in Taiwan.  The same thing may have been happening here.  

There may have been a symbolic motivation as well.  Saul in Hebrew is writen as שָׁאוּל and means "Asked or prayed for".  Paul, on the other hand, is a Grecko/Roman name meaning "small."  It may be that Saul felt so humbled by his early persecution of the followers of Jesus, that he welcomed a more humble name. Maybe he felt like one of "the least of these, my brethren" (Matt 25: 40) instead of someone that was "asked for".  Or maybe it was a self depricating joke.  One historical source describe Paul as short and bald headed. (Onesiphorus: The Acts of Paul and Thecla). 

Often in the Old Testament, the name is the message.  Some of that continues in the New Testament,  so here are some of the other meanings of names from this week's reading, Acts 6-9

Stephen: a Greek name Στέφανος  that means crown or garland.  He is the one who sees Jesus enthroned next to God the Father.

Simon: This is a very common Hebrew name that means, "To hear" from the first word of the Shema.

Peter: of course, is Greek and mean "Rock" 

Philip: is Greek, "Φίλιππος" and means, "lover of horses." It is interesting that in the only story about him he goes and talks to the man in a charriot.

Judas (the own of the house where they took Saul to recover) is just the Greek form of Judah.

Tabitha/Dorcus: they mean Gazelle. One of the podcasters suggested that she lept from death into life like a gazelle leaping from the brush.  I think that is a stretch.

Ananias: a Hebrew name that means God is gracious. God was gracious in forgiving Saul and blessing him through Ananias.

It might be a stretch to see symbolic meanings for all these names, but it might not.  

The Day of Pentacost

This week in Come Follow Me we are studying Acts 1-5.  The most dramatic passage in these chapters is the description of the Day of Pentecost found in Acts chapter 2.  In many ways this is a very strange event, especially the sound "as of a rushing mighty wind" and "cloven tongues like as of fire".  Except for when Jesus calmed the tempest on the Sea of Galilea, New Testament accounts do not show God's power in such dramatic and obvious way. What was up with the fire and the wind?

My insight about this came from The Bible Project short video on the first half of the Book of Acts.  In it he explains that in the Old Testament, God's presence and power was signified by wind and fire. In Genesis 1:2 it says "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."  In Hebrew the word for "spirit" and "wind" are the same word.  In Ezekial it was wind blowing over the dry bones that raised them to life. (Ezekial 37: 9-10).  In Ezekiel this wind is specifically tied to the idea of resurrection "Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit (think wind) in you and you will live. " (v 13-14). If the graves opening as recorded in Matt 27:52-53 happened as the same time as the rushing of the wind, it would have definitely brought into the minds of Jews the passage from Ezekiel. 

The image of the fire is even more striking.  When Moses fled Egypt, the Lord went before them in a pillar of fire. (Ex 13:24).  (I just noticed that the wind was part of that miracle too, v. 21). When they came to Mt Sinai there was a pillar of fire above the mountain as Moses talked with the Lord. (Ex 24: 15-17).  After they had been wandering in the wilderness for a while, they could tell when the Lord was in the Tabernacle because there was a pillar of fire  (Ex 40:34-38).  In Isaiah's vision of the Holy City there was a pillar of fire above the thrown of God (Chapter 4:5).  To those familiar with the Old Testament, the presence of fire indicated the presence of God, and, more specifically in the case of the Tabernacle, the God they should follow. 

By sending the wind and the fire at the Day of Pentecost, God was communicating to the people of Jerusalem that the Spirit and power of the Lord was no longer to be found in the temple, but in the new Jesus movement led by the Apostles. Since the fire and wind landed on the Apostles, they were now the source of power and protection from God.  It is no wonder that the Jews in Jerusalem for the feast day responded to the sign and lined up to be baptized and follow the new religious group. 

Two last thoughts; Within one generation of this event, the temple itself was destroyed.  It is as if, by allowing the temple to be destroyed, God was confirming the message he sent on the Day of Pentecost. Also, it is fitting that the Day of Pentecost, (or Feast of Weeks as the Jews called it) celebrated the time when God gave the Law of Moses to the people.  The events on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 signaled a new law, a shift of power, a new beginning. 

The Reality of the Resurrection

This week in Come Follow Me, we read the chapters from each of the gospels that deal with the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Each tells the story slightly differently, agreeing on many major points, but with less or more detail.  John has perhaps the most detailed account and he seems really determined to show that Jesus had a physical body after his resurrection.  John tells that Jesus had Thomas touch his hands, feet and side (John 20: 27).  Later Jesus ate fish and bread with the disciples (John 21:15).  Other gospels show Jesus being touched (Matt 28:9, Luke 24:39). Why do the gospel writers make a special point of showing that the Resurrected Lord has (or at least had at that time) a physical body that could be touched and could eat?

One reason may be that the physical resurrection was one miracle that was completely unique to Jesus.  Other prophets had healed the sick and raised a person from death to mortality. (e.g. 2 Kings 5: 1-14, and 2 Kings 4: 18-37).  Other people who were dead had returned to visit the living. The best example of this was on the Mount of Transfiguration, (Matt 17:3).  But Jesus was the first to return from death clothed in a physical body that people could touch. 

Another reason is that there was no consensus among believing Jews as to the reality of the resurrection.  Earlier in Jesus' ministry the Sadducees tried to trick Jesus by asking him about the seven brothers who each married the same woman and then died (Mark 12:18).  This passage suggests that the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, but the Pharisees did. It seems strange to us that there could be such radically different views of life after death within one religion. But is it not as surprising as you may think, since throughout the Old Testament there is very little said about life after death. The focus was almost entirely on finding peace and safety in this life through communal righteousness. One defining characteristic of Christianity that represented a dramatic switch from Judaism is a switch of focus from physical to spiritual salvation. 

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a unique perspective on the importance of a physical resurrection. We are the only church I could find that currently believes that God, as well as Jesus, has a glorified physical body.  The other Christian churches believe the God is a spirit that fills the universe and many believe the Jesus is the physical incarnation of God. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe the Jesus and God are separate beings, and the Jesus is God's son, not just metaphorically, but in some literal way. We believe that one of the main reasons people come to earth is to gain a physical body so that we can eventually become like our Heavenly Father. If you are looking at just the New Testament it is not an outrageous belief.  Jesus repeatedly addresses God as his Father, said that if you knew him, you knew the Father. (John 14:9).  If Jesus is like the Father, so much so that if you see one, it is as if you have seen the other, and if Jesus made a special effort to prove he had a physical body after resurrection, it is not a ridiculous idea that Jesus' was physically resurrected so that he could be more like his Father who has a glorified physical body. 

Of course, every religion has their own logic that explains why they believe what they believe. The Bible is sufficiently vague on the nature of God that there is room for many different interpretations. But there can be no debate that Jesus was physically resurrected, and that this fact was, for some reason, very important.