|
|
In the sixth chapter of Acts, we read that the Apostles commissioned seven
men in the congregation at Jerusalem to supervise the church's ministry to
the needs of its widows and other poor. (This is generally considered to be
the beginning of the office of Deacon in the Church, although the Scriptures
do not use this term in referring to the original seven men.) Two of these
have gained lasting fame. One was Stephen, who became the Church's first
martyr. The other was Philip, whose story we find in Acts 8:5-40; 21:8-9.
After the death of Stephen, there was a general persecution of the Church at
Jerusalem, and many Christians fled to escape it. Philip fled to Samaria,
where he preached the Gospel to the Samaritans, a group who had split off
from the Jewish people about six centuries earlier, had intermarried with
other peoples, and were considered outsiders by most Jews. They received the
message with eagerness, and soon Peter and John came to Samaria to bless the
new converts.
After this, Philip was sent by God to walk along the road from Jerusalem
southwest to Gaza, where he met a eunuch (a term meaning literally a
castrated man, but also used to mean simply an official of a royal court) of
the Queen of Ethiopia (probably meaning Nubia -- what we now call the
Sudan), returning home after worshipping in Jerusalem. The man was reading
from Isaiah 53 ("He was wounded for our transgressions"), and Philip told
him about Jesus, and persuaded him that the words were a prophecy of the
saving work of Jesus. The man was baptized, and went on his way rejoicing,
while Philip went north to Caesarea, the major seaport of Israel, and its
secular capital.
When Paul (accompanied by Luke) was going up to Jerusalem for the last time,
he paused at Caesarea and spent several days with Philip. (This may be the
source of some of the information Luke used in writing the early chapters of
Acts.) We are told that Philip had four daughters who prophesied. (This is
relevant to discussions of the role of women in the Church.)
Was Philip the Deacon the same person as Philip the Apostle (see 1 May)?
No, they were different. There were Twelve Apostles, and they said, "Our
work is to preach the Gospel, not to administer the budget. Choose seven men
to administer the budget." Obviously they meant seven men other than
themselves.
Moreover, when Philip went to Samaria, and preached and made converts, he
baptized them, but none of them received the Holy Spirit. It was not until
Peter and John came from Jerusalem and laid hands on them that they received
the Spirit. Surely this means that Philip was not an Apostle--not one of the
Twelve.
Yes, they were the same person.
We have ancient testimony identifying them. Papias of Hierapolis, a
second-century writer who had spoken with some of the apostles, speaks of
the Philip of Acts 21 as one of the Apostles. Polycrates, a second-century
bishop of Ephesus, says that Philip, "one of the Twelve", was buried at
Hierapolis along with two aged virgin daughters of his, and that a third
daughter, a prophetess, was buried at Ephesus. It seems unlikely that two
Philips would both have unmarried daughters of whom at least one was known
as a prophetess.
If eleven of the Twelve Apostles refused the work of administering the
church's welfare program, but one, for special reasons, accepted it, it is
not clear that Luke would have felt bound to point this out. The Jerusalem
community may have thought it desirable to have one man serve both as one of
the Twelve and one of the Seven, so as to provide a link, a liason, between
the two groups. Philip, who specifically named in John's account of the
feeding of the Five Thousand (John 6:5), is likely to have had special
abilities in organizing the feeding of the hungry, and related matters.
Moreover, the Seven were originally appointed because the Greek-speaking
Jews complained that their widows were being neglected. Philip had a Greek
name ("lover of horses"), which at least suggests some kind of Hellenistic
element in his background. Even more to the point, we note that earlier,
when a group of Greek-speaking Jews wanted a chance to speak with Jesus,
they went first to Philip (Jn 12:20f). Clearly Philip was a good choice for
dealing with Hellenists.
As for the objection that Philip's Samaritan converts receive the laying on
of hands, not from Philip, but from Peter and John, it must be noted that
Peter and John were there specifically as representatives of the Apostles
gathered at Jerusalem. It may very well be that Philip wanted to make sure
that the receiving of a group of Samaritans into the Church, a gesture
certain to stir up violent emotions in some Christians, had the official
support of the College of Apostles.
|
|
