Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduPost by l***@hotmail.comPost by l***@hotmail.comActs 9:36 refers to a woman as a disciple.
Had this all answered and hit the discard instead of the send button.
Haven't got time to do it all over right now. Look up didaskeiv in
the TDNT and read the entire section.
TDNT notes some similarity between Jesus' disciples and those of the
rabbis, but concludes Jesus is Lord, not rabbi, and the commitment for
a disciple is a commitment to his person as Lord, and obedience to
him.
Very good. Yes, He taught from an authoritative that no one else
had or could. But that does not dismiss the fact that He still
followed
the custom of rabbi/telmedim. The scriptural note that He celibrated
the passover meal at the age of 12 and that He began His ministry
with the baptism and laying on of hands by John and the witness
of the Father at the age of 30 all follow the tradition of rabbi. And
though rabbis through the years have been forlorn to admit, those
who have objectively studied the gospel accounts declare that
Jesus was a very special rabbi, of a sort that little more than a
dozen have ever by so noted, that being a rabbi "with authority."
A very special requirement of having memorized then entire
Jewish scriptures and having two rabbis "with authority" recognizing
the fact and laying their hands on him and declaring it. John
and the Father are just such witnesses.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduIn talking about Act 9:36 they note two possibilities, one that she is
one of the disciples, and the other that she is a Christian.
The Acts 9 account parallels Paul's doctrinial teachings on deacon-
eses. In fact the verse actually notes her service which compared
to 1st & 2 Tim is exactly what Paul taught.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduThey
believe that in Acts, disciple is used for all Christians.
I don't. I view it from the Jewish perspective which transitioned
into
the Church elder/deacon roles.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduOne
possibility is that Acts 9:36 is calling the woman a disciple in the
same sense as others in Acts. But Christians are people with faith in
Christ as Lord, committed to obedience to him. So I think this is a
distinction without a difference.
This still does not meet the distinction of "talmede." (I can't
type this word as it should be transcribe. It is actually
"talmid" with a carrot over the "i". I spelled it as it sounds).
If you have access to a "Theological Wordbook of the OT", on
p. 480 under 1116, second column, you'll find it explained. A
talmede is a "scholar", a Rabbi and his students are termed
talmidim (carrots over each "i") or apprentices. Israel was
also considered collectively as talmidim, "apprenticed to
the torah of God. The Jewish Talmud gets its name from this
root." Talmidim is only of the 24 divisions of priests, a
"teacher of the law" being a rabbi specialized in the first five
books whereas a rabbi "with authority" was that an much
much more. Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-40) was one who was
regarded as a rabbi "with authority" and Paul "was brought
up...at the feet of Gamaliel" (Acts 22:3). This is a Jewish
idiom referring to the closeness of the student to his
teacher. "How much dust do you have on you" refers
to following close to the rabbi, so close that the dust
that his sandal kicked up landed upon the disciple closest
to the rabbi. John's leaning on the breast of Christ also
illustrates this.
The broadest meaning of disciple in relation to Jesus
comes from those instances where the term may be
used of the multitudes who followed Him. For example,
in Mt 5:1 it is unclear whether the multitude is identified
synonymously with the disciples or the disciples are a
smaller group within the multitude. Likewise, in Lk 6:13
Jesus chooses the 12 disciples from a larger group of
"followers" also called disciples. In these settings Jesus
is teaching and the multitude is willing to be taught, and
thus in the general sense they could be called disciples
(Mt 5:2ff.; Lk 6:20ff.).
John 6 contributes an important truth about disciples.
While the chapter begins with a distinction between the
multitude and the disciples (cf. vv 2-3, 11, 22), we later
learn that among the group of disciples are unbelievers.
After Jesus' Bread of Life discourse, John tells us that
"many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, 'This
is a hard saying: Who can understand it?'" (v 60). In His
answer to them Jesus said, "But there are some of you
who do not believe," which John indicates included Judas
Iscariot, who would betray Jesus later (v 64). When the
text notes that "from that time many of His disciples went
back and walked with Him no more" (v 65), we are led to
assume these unbelievers are a large part of the departing
group. However, at least one unbeliever, Judas Iscariot,
remains with the twelve disciples (v 67).
This interchange with Jesus in John 6 shows that the
term "disciple" in its broadest sense can even refer to
unbelievers so obviously it could include women. But
the stricter meaning of the term, one that is noted in
the chosing of a replacement of Judas, will not allow
such a conclusion. Not a few scholars equate the
stricter meaning with "apostle." They were chosen
in the same sense that a rabbi would select who he
would teach and who he wouldn't.
This brings me to my final point and that is that the
12 were 12 young men who had not made the grade
and been accepted by a rabbi for apprenticeship. This
is why when called, they followed Jesus so readily. The
talmid and talmidim relationship was part of the senerio.
Peter was the only disciple that was of "age" and that
is proven by the fact that only he and Jesus had to
pay the temple tax derived from the fishes mouth. This
would have made them 21 or older. The other disciples
were all teenagers!!!