The Seven and the One

Acts 6:1-15

Welcome! Over the past two weeks, we took a bit of a detour from a series on the Book of Acts, focusing on the death and resurrection of Christ. Today we return to Acts.

Since it has been a few weeks, let us take time for a quick review. Acts begins by telling how, over a period of 40 days, the risen Jesus met repeatedly with the disciples, encouraging and instructing them, and also telling them to stay in Jerusalem because it is there they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. He also told them that they would be His witnesses, in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. He soon after rose up from them into the clouds, and while the disciples were looking up, two angels basically told them to stop looking up and go about the business Jesus instructed, and they told them that Jesus some day would return in a manner similar to how He had departed. They went back to Jerusalem, chose Matthias to replace Judas, and waited.   

And then, on the day of Pentecost, a sound like the blowing of a violent wind filled the house where they were staying, and what looked like tongues of fire came to rest on each of them. Then they were filled with the Spirit and began praising God in other languages. A crowd of Jews gathered after hearing the strange sound, and they were confronted with something even more unexplainable: these Galileans (obvious from their dress), were speaking of God in their own tongues! Peter addressed the crowd and explained that this was a fulfillment of prophecy, and that Jesus, whom they had had crucified, was fulfillment of even greater prophecy, and in fact was risen from the dead, and was Lord and Messiah. Over 3000 people repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus, and the church, the ekklesia, the called-out ones, was born.

The apostles continued to teach them, and they broke bread together and prayed together. They shared their possessions with those who had need. And the church continued to grow.

One day when Peter and John were going to the temple, a lame-from-birth beggar got their attention, and Peter, by the power of the Spirit, healed him. A crowd gathered, and Peter preached the gospel to them. But then they were arrested by the Jewish leaders, and the next day they were questioned by them. Peter boldly preached the gospel to them. The leaders then discussed the situation and then commanded them not to teach or speak about Jesus any longer. But Peter and John said that they could not follow that order, that they were compelled – by the Lord – to continue. They were released, went to the other believers, and prayed for boldness – and the place where they were praying was shaken.

I think we can argue that the arrest and commands not to preach were Satan’s first concerted effort to stop the church in its tracks, to derail the spread of the gospel. Of course, Satan also tried to stop the church before it began, to get Jesus to worship him, to get the leaders to be against Jesus, and ultimately to get the leaders to crucify Him. In each case it looked like Satan was winning, attaining his ends, but in each case, God converted his evil attacks into good things. Jesus’ death was the greatest thing of all – in that it was by His death that our sins have been atoned for – and God showed that Jesus’ death was accepted as payment for our sins by raising Him from the dead. As for Satan’s first post-resurrection attack on the church, this first persecution, God also converted it – in this case, into increased boldness in sharing the gospel, and increased fervor and devotion to God among the early believers.

They continued to share the gospel boldly, and many more people came to faith. And they continued to provide for one another, with some selling houses or land and giving the entire proceeds to the apostles to distribute based on need.

Then Satan began his second attack – this time, with an attempt to infiltrate or corrupt the church. Although not explicitly stated, we can assume that Ananias and his wife Sapphira saw that people who sold property and gave the proceeds to the church were celebrated and honored. Indeed, this behavior touches on established practices in honor-shame cultures that persist to this day – the practice is called patronage. Patronage has existed in all ancient cultures and is found in the Bible even in some of the earliest passages. The idea behind patronage is that someone becomes a “patron” (which is a word with roots in the word for “father”) by providing needs for a group of people, and in return, the people honor the patron by praising him and telling others of his greatness, causing his name and fame to spread. Ideally for the patron, the patron chooses people who are likely to have the greatest influence among those around them, that is, people already in decent standing in society. There is nothing inherently sinful in the patronage system, and in a very real sense, God the Father takes on the role of patron in the Old Testament to the Jews.  

But the Kingdom of God, as revealed by Jesus, kind of turns this practice upside down – Jesus says that those who want to be the greatest should become like lowly servants to the lowly. In other words, they should seek to serve those who cannot pay them back by raising their patron’s honor status because they don’t have the “clout” to do so.

Now we don’t know much about Ananias and Sapphira – they may not have even been believers at all – but we know what they did – they sold a piece of property and only put some of the money at the apostle’s feet, all the while pretending – or allowing the misconception to continue – that they had given them everything. We know that this is an attack of Satan because Peter, filled with the Spirit, says so; he says, to paraphrase, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have done this?” Upon hearing Peter’s words, Ananias fell down and died on the spot, causing those in the church to feel a holy fear – a realization that the holy God is not to be used, not to be viewed as a means of raising one’s honor through dishonest means – that the consequences could literally be deadly. And in conformation, his wife, unaware of what has happened, persisted in the lie, and she too fell down dead. This led to the church being even more filled with a holy fear, a fear of the Lord, which Proverbs says is the beginning of wisdom. And so we see that Satan’s second attack also backfired on him.

One thing that strikes me in this – and I apologize if this comparison seems impertinent, but I don’t think Satan deserves much respect, despite his power – but Satan strikes me a lot like Wile E Coyote in the old Road Runner cartoons. The Road Runner is the church, simply running the race, as we are told to do in Hebrews 12:2, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. Wile E Coyote keeps trying to blow up the Road Runner, but each attempt backfires, only hurting himself. I am also reminded of Romans 8:31: If God is for us, who can be against us?

In any case, the church continued to grow, now with people from outside Jerusalem coming in to learn and to be healed. And so Satan returned to his first strategy. The Jewish leaders arrested the apostles – apparently all of them this time, not just Peter and John – but this time an angel opened the doors of the jail and brought them out in the night, telling them to go right into the temple courts and boldly continue to proclaim the gospel, “all about this new life.”

They did just that the next morning. The Jewish leaders were told of their miraculous escape and what they were now doing. They had them brought to them and reminded them that they had been told not to talk publicly about Jesus. The apostles in turn reminded them that they were going to obey God over human beings and proclaimed the gospel to them. The Jewish leaders were furious and wanted to put them to death, but Gamaliel persuaded them that it was better to do nothing, that if this was not from God, it would all die out on its own. But if by some chance it was from God, then they were fighting against God and would surely fail. They were persuaded by this speech and, rather than having the apostles killed, had them flogged. You could say that Ole’ Wile E Coyote finally got to harm his nemesis, the Road Runner! But did this apparent triumph of Satan deter the apostles? Quite the opposite! They actually rejoiced because they saw this as a sign that God had counted them worthy to suffer for His Name! They continued to teach in the temple courts and from house to house, more bold than ever.

This brings us at last to today’s passage, from Acts chapter 6, verse 1:

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” – Acts 6:1-4

As I began to dig deeper into this passage, I was surprised to discover that this passage is not as simple as it might appear. Let’s start with what we do know for sure.

The Hellenistic Jews were Greek-speaking Jews, people who likely had either lived in the past in regions outside Israel, or people who had come for Pentecost, become saved, and stayed. Although some Jews who lived in Israel spoke Greek, it was not their primary language; Hebrew was. In contrast, the Hebraic Jews were those who likely lived in Israel and nearby areas, and they spoke Hebrew as their primary language.

How did these two categories of Jews view each other? From other period writings, we can say “not very well.” The attitude of many Hebraic Jews was “Why wouldn’t you live in Israel? It is the promised land! Come here, learn Hebrew properly, and fulfill God’s promise to Abraham!” As for the Hellenistic Jews, their view of the Hebraic Jews was that their leaders were corrupt, fighting each other, and that they had a “holier-than-thou” attitude, all of which was largely correct. Both sides had valid points, and, like many political divides, neither side was likely to influence people on the other to change their views.

Satan saw this conflict as yet another opportunity. If he couldn’t scare the church into timidity, and if he couldn’t corrupt the church with people in it for their own honor, and if he couldn’t kill off their leaders, maybe he could divide and conquer. If he could get them to focus on their cultural identity and get each side to view the other side with increasing suspicion and even hostility, he could destroy the reputation of the church to outsiders and thereby destroy the church entirely.

Now the challenge of this passage is to understand exactly what was going on. Doesn’t the passage say that the Hellenistic widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food? Well, not exactly. What it says is that they were being overlooked in the daily “diakonia”. Elsewhere, this word is translated “ministry.” Indeed, the word for deacon has roots in this word. Now it is true that communal meals were part of community life in the early church, but it is a bit hard to believe that this passage means that the Greek widows weren’t getting any food at these functions. If this passage does refer to food, it more likely referring to some kind of provision for widows’ food outside of these community meals. But it is entirely possible that it doesn’t refer to food at all.

“Now, wait a minute,” you might say. “What about the part about waiting on tables?” Well, that is not exactly what the original Greek says either. The NIV says “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the Word of God in order to wait on tables.” In the Greek, that same root word “diakon” appears twice in this passage. A more literal translation is “It would not be right for us to not minister the Word of God in order to minister tables.” That is, “diakon” appears twice, once with regards to the Word and once with regards to the tables. The same word is used. This is a rhetorical device, a form of repetitio (repetition), called mesodiplosis, repetition of a middle word in multiple clauses. Another example from the Bible is used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:8-9 on the words “but not”: “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.”  My main point here, though, is that the idea of “waiting” on tables, like a, well, waiter, is not here in the text.

As for the word translated “tables,” it is “trapezai”, which simply means any kind of table. We get the mathematical shape “trapezoid” from this word, which is a four-sided shape. But more importantly, “trapezai” is often associated in ancient writings with the distribution of money. Think of banking tables instead of food tables. In fact, banks are still called “trapezai” in Greece today!

Personally, the idea that this passage is referring to the distribution of funds makes more sense to me than the idea that it is about serving actual food. We have had the repeated mention of people selling property and giving the funds to the apostle’s feet. That made it the apostle’s responsibility to use these funds. Administering a charity in this way is indeed a major job, a full-time job, indeed, multiple full-time jobs, especially as the church was continuing to grow exponentially.

I have unfortunately seen examples of sermons misusing this passage to argue that it somehow argues that pastors should not be involved in menial work. In my opinion this goes against major themes of Jesus’ teaching on servant leadership, perhaps most notably with His example of washing His disciples’ feet. Yes, His example had a higher interpretation, about the need for believers to keep coming repentantly to Jesus all their lives, but it also had a very direct interpretation about servant leadership.  

Regardless of how we understand today’s passage, there is no question that the key issue was that the rapidly growing church needed growing leadership. I am reminded of how Moses was burning himself out judging the many conflicts among the Israelites, and it took the good advice of Jethro to bring in others qualified to judge to rescue Moses from this burden.

I believe that what is happening here is similar. The apostles realize that this distribution of funds – or food – process demands more time than they have. It also has the potential to cause serious problems in the church, even division. And the apostles are not Hellenistic Jews. Apart from the possible issue of the optics of only having Hebraic Jews administer the funds, the far more serious problem is that this is a hard problem for only Hebraic Jews to solve, as the language and cultural barriers may make it difficult for them to even know who to talk to in order to figure out what is actually going on.  

It is for this reason, I believe, that the bar is set very high for these men who are to take over this distribution. They must be widely known and respected, both in terms of practical wisdom and in terms of the depth of their Christian walk. I am not sure why the number seven was chosen, although it is an obvious symbol of completion, going back even to the days of Creation. I have read that to be a Jewish business that had a banking component, a board of seven men was required. This is supposedly in the Jewish writings known as the Mishna, but I have not been able to verify this.  

This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith. – Acts 6:5-7

It is not known whether each of these men were Hellenistic or Hebraic Jews, but it is interesting that each of them is named by a Hellenistic name. If they were indeed all Hellenistic, it was a beautiful loving show of unity to do this in this way. It would have made sense, because they all would know Greek and could help solve the problems more easily. It certainly would have showed that the Hebraic apostles had no thoughts of themselves as a people being somehow superior to the Hellenistic Jews. This was an early example of what Paul would later write, that in Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek.

It is also interesting that one of the seven was a convert to Judaism. This may have meant that he was viewed as truly neutral to the longstanding divide between Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews. It is also interesting to me that this discussion about what to do was not held in a closed meeting of only the apostles. The meeting was in a larger group setting, since it “pleased the whole group.”

Note that the “whole group” did more than hear the plan – they implemented it! The apostles left it for them to find from among their thousands seven qualified men. And that is exactly what they did.

When it comes to leadership of a church today, I do think there are some topics whose discussion needs to be limited to a church leadership, particularly when it involves confidential information about other members of the church, but I also think that church leadership should discuss potential major changes in a church with the church body, such as what we see here. The change from “the twelve” to “the twelve plus the seven” was indeed a major change. And I also think it is important that the church body have a significant role in the appointment of leadership. When we at CCC have added to our leadership, we have done this. Any candidate for pastor is evaluated by the existing leadership with regards to the Biblical qualifications for leadership found in I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. The candidate is then announced to the church, and then feedback is solicited from the church body. It is not the exact same process as we see in Acts 6, but Acts 6 takes place before the lists are developed in Timothy and Titus. What we read in Acts is descriptive, but not always prescriptive.

Now Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas are only mentioned in this passage. Philip is a different Philip than the apostle Philip. Later in Acts he is described as “Philip the Evangelist.” As for Stephen, he is described in the most honorable terms of the seven. And for good reason, as we will see.

And so, yet again, we see Satan, also now associated with Wile E, has his plans defeated/thwarted. And indeed, his interference has only led to a strengthening in the leadership of the church – it has expanded, as it had needed to expand. And it has demonstrated love and unity and humility in the process!

And so this passage tells us that the church continued to grow rapidly. And even, shockingly, a large number of priests became believers! We aren’t told exactly what this looked like. Were they permitted to continue their priestly duties? Did they believe in secret? We don’t know.

Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke. – Acts 6:8-10

Notice that it was not only the apostles now who were performing signs and miracles – Stephen, one of the seven, was doing this as well. Stephen was previously described as full of faith and the Holy Spirit; now he is additionally described as full of grace and power. But his message, the message of Jesus Messiah, God, and Son of God, the message of His life, death, and resurrection, and the message that salvation is found in no one else, was rejected and offensive to many.  

What was the Synagogue of the Freedmen? They are only mentioned here in Scripture. Given the locations they come from, they are clearly Hellenistic Jews, as Stephen likely is. They are probably made up of, at least originally, Jews who were former slaves. There were many such people, as the Roman general Pompei had sent many Jews to Rome as slaves in 63 BC. But their name is very ironic, as it is the Jewish Christian believers who are the real freedmen; the Synagogue of the Freedmen is composed of people who remain slaves to sin; as Jesus says in John 8:34, anyone who sins is a slave to sin. And by resisting the gospel truth they were certainly still in their sins. Just two verses earlier, in John 8:32, Jesus says to His disciples that if they hold to His teaching, they will know the truth, and the truth will set them free. And in verse 36: “…if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” We who know Jesus know the truth, and Jesus the Son has set us free, so we are free indeed!

One of these locations deserves special mention: Cilicia. The main city of Cilicia you have heard of from a description of a pretty important person in the New Testament, one you are going to meet not today, but soon, as we continue through Acts. The city in Cilicia is Tarsus.

Now in the arena of ideas, in the court of public debate, these so-called Freedmen had no chance against Stephen, as he had the truth of God, the wisdom of God, and the Spirit of God on his side. These public debates were like honor-shame wrestling matches, and in this case, there was no contest. And having been publicly shamed and embarrassed, the Freedmen resorted to pure evil, just as the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had done against Jesus.   

Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” – Acts 6:11-14

“We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” What were these words? We can conjecture. Perhaps it was the truth that nobody is able to completely follow the Law of Moses, so it is powerless to save. That could have been seen as blasphemous against Moses. Perhaps he was identifying Jesus as God, and that would have been seen as blasphemous against God. Perhaps this man of Tarsus was there, hearing these arguments of Stephen. Perhaps he was one of those arguing against them! These accusations were enough to get the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to arrest Stephen and bring him before the Sanhedrin.

And just as false witnesses made similar claims against Jesus, they go to these same false arguments again, this time against Stephen. Jesus did say, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” (John 2:19) He meant His body, and He was absolutely correct about that. But the false witnesses deliberately twisted His words and His intentions. They would not be called false witnesses if they only misunderstood what Jesus (or Stephen) had said.

The wording is interesting in the last verse. They don’t claim that Jesus will change the Law of Moses. They say He will change the customs of Moses. What does that even mean? They are conflating the non-Biblical add-ons of the Pharisees and others with the actual Law of Moses.

I think of Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. – Matthew 23:2-4

Indeed, much of Matthew 23 is relevant to this discussion of the add-ons of the Pharisees, but we are running out of time, so I want to talk about the final verse of today’s passage:

All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel. – Acts 6:15

What a fascinating description! What does this mean exactly? I don’t think we know. But I reminded of the description of Moses after encountering God on the mountain.

When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord. When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. But Moses called to them; so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and he spoke to them. Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the Lord had given him on Mount Sinai. – Exodus 34:29-32

When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. But whenever he entered the Lord’s presence to speak with Him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord. – Exodus 34:33-35

I don’t know if this was exactly what Stephen was like, but I do believe that God was speaking with Stephen, preparing him for his amazing response, which we will read next week. If I was one of those Sanhedrin seeing Stephen with the face like the face of an angel, I would question whether I wanted to continue with this charade. But their hearts were hardened. They were slaves to their sin and slaves to Satan. And it looked like Satan was finally going to get a victory. The charges against Stephen carried a death sentence. And surely the death of the church’s star speaker would set the church back and perhaps even destroy it, wouldn’t it? Find out next week!