Philip- almost "forgotten"-on purpose?
This past Sunday, my Bible class studied Acts 8.
This account explores the evangelistic activity of Philip, one of 7 deacons who were appointed by the Apostles in Acts chapter 2. He is also known as the evangelist, first in Samaria, home of the "half breed" culture derived from the Assyrian invasion over 600 years before. It is possible that he was the Apostle Philip- perhaps the Hellenistic supervisor of the deacons who were to minister to the Greek widows...in any event, he was quite a minister in his own right.
The class discussion centered around how the Gospel was breaking down barriers, of race, as it had to do with Samaritans, and of material gain and personal profit, in the story of "Simon Magus" the locally famous magician who had a "going concern magic business" among the Samaritans.
Then the chapter includes Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch who was riding in his chariot, heading back home after having gone to Jerusalem on a religious pilgrimage. The account records how the eunuch was reading Isaiah 53, and how Philip helped the eunuch to see the connection between this prophetic account and Jesus who became the Christ. The account then relates how Philip, with the eunuch's consent, baptized the man, by immersion (Baptists like this passage).
Here is another account of how the Gospel broke down barriers-- this one being the barrier of blemish, as eunuchs were castrated and according to Jewish law, were blemished-- that is, unable to become acceptable to God or to their temple tradition.
There is some scholarly debate as to whether this Philip is the same as the original Apostle, and whether or not he was the one associated with the so called Gospel of Philip, which was the fragmented Nag Hammadi text which is singled out as one of the gospels which identifies Mary of Magdala as the Apostle to the Apostles, and the one who frequently kissed the Master "on the mouth". Scandalous!
I freely admit-- I am speculating...but,
a thought came to me during the class, "why isn't Philip more highly regarded, equal to or more prominent than Peter, John, and James?"
Could it be that Philip, who saw no barriers as to race or blemish, also saw no barriers as to gender?
In Acts 21, Paul is said to have lodged with Philip, in Caesarea, with his 4 daughters --who according to the Acts account, were prophetesses. Was he a first century champion of women in ministry?
This could be why not much emphasis has been placed on Philip by the western, patristic tradition.
Instead the tradition went with Peter as the first Pope, and John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and James, Jesus' brother.
I think Philip was a powerful leader.
It may be that early misogyny led the chauvinist leaders of the church away from this leader who saw women as equals in the eyes of Christ, and in the church.
I am not surprised, if that be the case. This interpretive way continued up until the present day.
Let's give Philip a bit more gravitas. He was a great evangelist, and was courageous and bold, in the face of discrimination. Truly it appears that he was one who understood Christ's message fully...and directly acted upon the Message.
This account explores the evangelistic activity of Philip, one of 7 deacons who were appointed by the Apostles in Acts chapter 2. He is also known as the evangelist, first in Samaria, home of the "half breed" culture derived from the Assyrian invasion over 600 years before. It is possible that he was the Apostle Philip- perhaps the Hellenistic supervisor of the deacons who were to minister to the Greek widows...in any event, he was quite a minister in his own right.
The class discussion centered around how the Gospel was breaking down barriers, of race, as it had to do with Samaritans, and of material gain and personal profit, in the story of "Simon Magus" the locally famous magician who had a "going concern magic business" among the Samaritans.
Then the chapter includes Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch who was riding in his chariot, heading back home after having gone to Jerusalem on a religious pilgrimage. The account records how the eunuch was reading Isaiah 53, and how Philip helped the eunuch to see the connection between this prophetic account and Jesus who became the Christ. The account then relates how Philip, with the eunuch's consent, baptized the man, by immersion (Baptists like this passage).
Here is another account of how the Gospel broke down barriers-- this one being the barrier of blemish, as eunuchs were castrated and according to Jewish law, were blemished-- that is, unable to become acceptable to God or to their temple tradition.
There is some scholarly debate as to whether this Philip is the same as the original Apostle, and whether or not he was the one associated with the so called Gospel of Philip, which was the fragmented Nag Hammadi text which is singled out as one of the gospels which identifies Mary of Magdala as the Apostle to the Apostles, and the one who frequently kissed the Master "on the mouth". Scandalous!
I freely admit-- I am speculating...but,
a thought came to me during the class, "why isn't Philip more highly regarded, equal to or more prominent than Peter, John, and James?"
Could it be that Philip, who saw no barriers as to race or blemish, also saw no barriers as to gender?
In Acts 21, Paul is said to have lodged with Philip, in Caesarea, with his 4 daughters --who according to the Acts account, were prophetesses. Was he a first century champion of women in ministry?
This could be why not much emphasis has been placed on Philip by the western, patristic tradition.
Instead the tradition went with Peter as the first Pope, and John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and James, Jesus' brother.
I think Philip was a powerful leader.
It may be that early misogyny led the chauvinist leaders of the church away from this leader who saw women as equals in the eyes of Christ, and in the church.
I am not surprised, if that be the case. This interpretive way continued up until the present day.
Let's give Philip a bit more gravitas. He was a great evangelist, and was courageous and bold, in the face of discrimination. Truly it appears that he was one who understood Christ's message fully...and directly acted upon the Message.
Comments