While reading Acts, I had a lot of questions, but the thing that stood out the most to me was in Acts 2. Now, don't get me wrong, I have heard of speaking in tongues, mainly because my brother & sister-in-law attend a Church of God and my brother has told me some stories about people speaking in tongues. As I had not looked any further into the whole speaking in tongues thing, mainly because growing up, we attended a non-denominational church sometimes and the whole speaking in tongues thing wasn't happening. So, coming across this reference to speaking in tongues in Acts 2 had me interested.It made me curious, therefore, my question is, what did it really mean to speak in tongues?
During my research, I found a lot of information from Corinthians, but alas, that is not the book I am writing about this week, so I am focusing solely on what it meant to speak in tongues based on the information given to us in the Book of Acts. Acts 2:4 states, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." So, without reading any further, what does this mean? Before reading this and researching it, (side note-I am certainly not judging or being crass when I say this), I thought (and again, this was before reading and researching), that speaking in tongues was literally the Holy Ghost got in someone and that they started babbling unintelligibly. I know, that is probably horrible of me to think, but honestly, what else was I supposed to think? I hear, "speaking in tongues" and I think someone basically babbling. (another side-note-If I offended anyone, I deeply apologize). Therefore, the reference to speaking in tongues in Acts had me enamored. I, like I said above, never thought of it as something that others could interpret(besides one or two in the congregation), and I never thought of it as something that was helpful to others. In researching, I of course, was proven wrong, at least that's what I now believe.
Acts 2:5-8 describes the speaking of tongues in a way I never even imagined; "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" I never looked at it this way, I never had to read the whole New Testament either though. If we read these verses and take them for exactly what they say, it says that speaking in tongues is not in fact the "babble" I thought it was, it is speaking in other languages that one did not know that they could speak. According to House to House, my thoughts are confirmed. This website states that speaking in tongues essentially means for someone to speak in an understandable and established language. This source goes on to say that speaking in tongues, in our modern days, is generally a misused and misunderstood statement, because what is in fact happening when people "speak in tongues" today, they are really referring to "ecstatic utterances made after" contact with the Holy Spirit. Also according to this website, speaking in tongues is generally stating that the apostles could speak in more than one foreign language. Another website, Got Questions, also confirms that "the gift of tongues is speaking in a language a person does not know in order to minister to someone who does speak that language."
Therefore, according to most websites, articles, etc., the speaking of tongues as described in the Book of Acts is a spontaneous speaking of another language. In an academic article that I found, The Philosophy of Speaking in Tongues, I found that the speaking of tongues in Acts, is called Glossolalia, which literally means the act of speaking in a language other than the one that the person is aware that they can speak. It seems that most people come to agreement that speaking in tongues, according to Acts, was speaking in understandable languages to people who needed to hear the word.
This week's blog was a little easier on me, because (in my mind), John is so different from the other three Gospel's. John's book was certainly a page turner and while it was a little hard for me to get through and understand Matthew, Mark, & Luke sometimes, I just could not stop reading John. I know, it sounds crazy, but it's true, I enjoyed it. The only problem was, I had 100 questions that I feel like I could have asked, but I decided on one, finally. That being said, my question is: Who was Lazarus and why did Jesus raise him from the dead? As I was reading, I ran across this man, Lazarus, who I had heard of before, but not read anything about, and here it is in John, all about his death and Jesus raising him.
Lazarus of Bethany is not mentioned in the other gospel's and that is why the story about him interested me so much. If this was such a miracle and a sign, why was it not mentioned in the other gospel's?(That is besides the point though and if I ramble off in that direction, we might be here all day). John 11 is the first the reader here's about Lazarus. So, who was he? According to Infoplease, Lazarus of Bethany was a friend and follower of Jesus. Also, according to another website, American Catholic, Lazarus was also the brother of Mary and Martha. In John 11:1-4, we learn that Lazarus was clearly someone Jesus loved and cared about very much. The sisters even said to Jesus, "Lord the one who you love is ill." John 11:3. So, as we can see, Lazarus of Bethany was someone very close to Jesus and the brother of Mary and Martha. Although this is good information, and tells us the basics of who Lazarus was I wanted to dig a little bit deeper into who exactly Lazarus of Bethany was, obviously he had to be someone besides just a friend/follower of Jesus and someone's brother. So, according to Nostos, Lazarus was a saint of the Greek Orthodox Church and he was born in Bethany. Jesus actually knew Lazarus' father Simon and would often times visit their home when he was near by, this is how Lazarus formed a close bond with Jesus. Also, Lazarus was around 30 years old when he became ill.
Now, why did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, especially after 4 days? Why didn't Jesus just get to town and heal him before he died? This was the part of the story that I didn't really get. Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead because he loved him that much? Did he do it to prove he was the Son of Man? Or, was it because of something else? According to John 11:17, by the time Jesus got to Bethany, Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days, and was probably with God in Heaven at this point(just my personal opinion, I don't honestly know). According to most websites, and essentially according to the bible, the reason Jesus raised Lazarus was because it was a miracle. According to our text, "The raising of Lazarus is one of the last of the seven great signs that punctuate John's Gospel." I believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, not only because it was a sign and a miracle, but also because he loved him and cared for him and wishes he would have been there to heal him when he was extremely ill. Jesus was performing signs and miracles to prove to people that he was the Son of Man and that it was nearing time for his crucifixion and resurrection.
Once again, it was very hard to come up with a question this week. Luke mashed up with Matthew and Mark and it felt like I was reading the same story(which, duh, I am), over and over again, so everything is kind of getting mashed up into one confused blob in my head. So, again, after re-reading, and doing a little research about the Gospel of Luke, I decided on my question. So, my question is, as my blog title suggests; Why did Luke include the childhood of Jesus in his gospel? Although this was a really hard question to research, I really wanted to know the answer. As it turns out, there isn't really a definitive answer to this question, which, in my mind, makes it all the more interesting. I wish this blog post was more informative and entertaining, but alas, it is not, because there is not much information on the subject of Jesus and his childhood and there is certainly almost no information on why only Luke included a short little story about Jesus as a boy.
Now, we have all heard the story of Mary, the Virgin, giving birth to Jesus and laying him in a manger because there was no room in the inn, but I, personally, had never heard any stories of Jesus as a child. I kind of wonder why this is. Are the parts in between the birth and Jesus' ministry unimportant? I don't think so. I think that the "in between" parts aren't included in all the Gospels because it is almost unnecessary in getting the point and stories of Jesus across, but I find it interesting. Therefore, why does Luke add some things in his Gospel that I have not read in Matthew or Mark? It appears that there isn't much known about Jesus' actual childhood, but for some reason, Luke adds a little tid bit for all the readers. In my opinion, by adding a little extra information, it helps readers understand more about Jesus' faith and life. It was very hard for me to find any sources with any answers to my question, but I will do my best with what I have been given. According to one source, (which is a Church, but it's the best I could find), Gospel Accounts, Luke was writing to a Greek audience and possibly wanted them to understand the early signs of Jesus' wisdom and teachings. In Luke 3:41-52, the author tells the only story we truly know of Jesus' childhood, "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers." Luke 3:41-47.
According to Religion Facts, the Gospels are mostly silent when it comes to mentioning anything about Jesus as a boy. We just get the facts, Mary, The Virgin, gave birth to him, wise men came and visited, Herod wanted him killed, then the next thing we know, Jesus, when he was around 30 (Luke 4:23), began his ministry. I suppose most of the in between would be frivolous and unimportant considering all that the gospels are really trying to tell us is that Jesus is the Son of Man, and the Messiah. The point of the gospels really isn't to tell Jesus' complete story from birth to death to resurrection. The most important parts of those from the beginning of his ministry to his death and resurrection. In my mind though, I feel like I am missing a chunk of information (almost like watching The Harry Potter Series/Hunger Games/Almost any book to movie translation without having read the books-weird comparison, I know). I wish I could find more information about the "in between", but I can't. That being said, I am glad that Luke, being the "investigative reporter" he is decided to add a few extra things about Jesus' boyhood. Certainly Luke 3:41-52 truly shows the reader how important and wise Jesus was.
In closing, I believe that Luke included the story about Mary and Joseph going to Jerusalem for every Passover and then Jesus in turn staying behind to teach as a further indicator of Jesus' great wisdom.
