... continued from Saturday.
______________
So there was a daily distribution of food. Certain men--probably not Peter or John themselves--took the donations from those with extra and distributed them among the widows in the community. No doubt taking care of those who could not take care of themselves was a never ending challenge for Jerusalem Christians. Some fifteen years later when the apostle Paul met with Peter, John, and James, the brother of Jesus, they would urge Paul to remember the poor in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:10). The offering that Paul later raised in his churches and brought to Jerusalem may very well have been for these poor (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:1-4).
In the process, the Aramaic-speaking widows were receiving the help they needed, but apparently the Greek-speaking widows were largely being missed, hopefully unintentionally. On the one hand, it is easy to see how it could happen unintentionally--out of sight out of mind. You don't worship with these people. You don't move in the same social or work circles. You never run into them, so you don't see them. You forget that there are those all around you in need whom you don't see.
This sort of thing happens just as often today as ever. People in need can be living all around your church or your home that you just do not see. They are suffering in silence. It could be obvious if you were looking, but nothing is forcing you to look, and they slip past you unnoticed.
Of course it could have happened intentionally too. "We take care of our own." I would be surprised if there wasn't some prejudice in the early church. We are the Aramaic-speakers, the "Hebrews of the Hebrews" (cf. Phil. 3:5). They are the Diaspora Jews. We're purer than they are. We're better than they are. [1] Our widows deserve more. Let them fend for themselves.
Whatever the motivations, it would be easy to see Peter taken a little off guard. Does he sound a little defensive when he tells them it isn't his job to wait on tables (6:2)? His preaching and teaching ministry is too important to waste time on those sorts of things. Sounds like the rationalization of someone who is unexpectedly confronted with an embarrassing fault or mistake. No one is too important to take care of widows--certainly Jesus wasn't!
Acts tells the story in a way that helps Peter and the disciples save face with Theophilus and other readers for their oversight. But we can hear hints of early tensions even in the solution. We like to think of the six men who were now expected to take care of widows as the earliest Christian "deacons," although the passage does not actually call them by this term. [2] But this was not likely a group appointed to take care of all the Christian widows in Jerusalem so that the disciples could be spiritual and untainted by such menial tasks.
If you look at the names of the six, they do not read as a balanced mixture of Aramaic- and Greek-speaking ministers. These are all Greek-speaking Jews, and one of them isn't even a Jew at all but a convert to Judaism who was born a Gentile. [3] In other words, the leaders approved outsiders to take care of outsiders. Rather than engage in the uncomfortable task of working on a less familiar language in a less than familiar cross-cultural context, they empowered the outsiders to help themselves.
What follows is an indication that the apostles were not only failing the Hellenists when it came to food. We do not find Stephen and Philip waiting on tables in the chapters that follow. We find them preaching. Stephen ends up stoned because of preaching in the Synagogue of the Freedmen. Acts does not call Philip a deacon but Philip, "the evangelist."
The implication is that Jerusalem leaders like Peter were not managing to minister to the spiritual needs of Greek-speaking Jews either, beyond the material needs of widows. It is a reminder that we cannot all do everything. Even if it was embarrassing for this deficiency to go public, the result was good. Spiritual leaders emerged who could minister effectively to Greek-speaking Jews. The ministry task became distributed.
A gifted leader knows when to delegate. A pastor who insists on doing everything in a local church is destined to have a small congregation until God or others step in. Some of us are more gifted than others. But even the most gifted, "type A" personality--those who are willing to sacrifice their family and health because they insist on doing everything alone--could not fully minister to a congregation of 200. The Holy Spirit will empower others to step in the gap if we don't recognize the need.
So God used the conflict over the Greek-speaking widows as an opportunity to cross a barrier with the good news. The barrier was one of language and culture, although the Hellenists were still Jews. Peter and the Jerusalem leaders may not have even seen the need and were probably a little defensive when the tension came to a head.
Hopefully, they realized that God's work is not about our individual egos. It's about God's mission in the world. Even when our own deficiencies facilitate the spread of the good news, we should be so devoted to God that we rejoice.
[1] I wouldn't be surprised if this dynamic was part of Paul's own psyche. Did he go to Jerusalem to prove himself and his purity? Did he initially begrudge his Roman citizenship and his Greek-speaking identity? Did this element play into his zeal as a Pharisee and his initial zeal against Greek-speaking Jewish believers? After he believed, did it then play into his staunch opposition to any favoritism based on keeping the purity and separation rules of Judaism?
[2] In fact, the book of Acts as a whole never uses this term anywhere. Acts mentions elders (e.g., 14:23), but it does not mention "deacon" as a particular office or function for individuals in the early church.
[3] Nicolas from Antioch would have been circumcised as part of the process of becoming a Jewish proselyte.
Showing posts with label Hellenists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hellenists. Show all posts
Monday, August 05, 2013
Saturday, August 03, 2013
Early Christian Complications 1
... continued writing on Acts
___________________
As long as we live on this earth, we will be susceptible to temptation. After all, even Jesus was tempted. Adam was tempted even though he did not have a "sin nature."
Some temptation comes because of a desire to sin (cf. James 1:14). But temptation can also come because a God-given desire is directed toward the wrong object. So the desire to have sex is God-given. The problem is when it is directed at someone who isn't your spouse. Temptation can also come when we find ourselves in new and unfamiliar situations.
For these reasons, no Christian individual ever gets to the point where he or she cannot be tempted to do the wrong thing. And the more people you have in a community, the opportunity for temptation multiplies exponentially. We should be optimistic about the power of God to help us resist the urge to do wrong, but we should also be realistic about the power and likelihood of temptation.
The early church was no more immune to temptation than other times and places in history. We like to think of the earliest Christians as saints. There's something about human nature that likes to think things were ideal in the past--not like they are today. But this dynamic of human culture has more to do with our forgetfulness than reality.
The story of Ananias and Sapphira is the first chink in our idealism about the earliest church. We can be sure that there were others like them who were pretending to share the virtues of authentic individuals like Barnabas. But deep down, their hearts were far from generous or virtuous. The early church had its hypocrites and pretenders, just like the church today.
Ananias and Sapphira did wrong intentionally. Individuals and communities of faith can also wrong others unintentionally. In no situation are we more likely to wrong someone unintentionally than when we are not aware of them, their needs, how they think or how they live. Conflict and misunderstanding are especially likely when we encounter people who are "other."
Acts 6 gives us an early conflict along these lines. Again, it is not clear that the earliest disciples were very aggressive about their mission. They seem to have spent most of their time praying and worshiping at the temple. They heal a lame man on their way to the temple. They end up preaching because of the stir that results when they heal him.
So Acts gives us no evidence that Peter or John went out of their way to make sure that Greek-speaking Jews--called Hellenists--would hear the good news about Christ. They seem to have heard unintentionally. Perhaps some of them were present on the Day of Pentecost. Perhaps there was talking going on in the Aramaic-speaking synagogues--the language of Jesus and Peter--and it spread to the Greek-speaking ones without anyone really thinking about it.
It was a cross-cultural situation ripe for complications and inadvertent mistakes. Leaders like Peter and John were not outward-focused at the time. They were looking "inward" and "upward." Ministry was taking place within the part of the community that was familiar. But Peter wasn't being proactive toward those outside the boundaries. He was in response mode to "outsiders" rather than missional mode.
It might be helpful to know that far more Jews lived outside of Jerusalem at the time of Christ than lived inside it. In fact more Jews lived in a fraction of a big city like Alexandria in Egypt than lived in all of Jerusalem. Greek was the business language of the Roman Empire, the "lingua franca." So far more Jews at the time of Christ likely spoke Greek than Aramaic, and they read the Old Testament in Greek.
It was thus understandable that part of the Jerusalem community would speak Greek. Some Jews inevitably were attracted to their homeland and made their way back to Palestine, just as happened in the last century after the nation of Israel was re-established. We call the Jews who were scattered around the world, "Diaspora" Jews. This dispersion had started centuries earlier, especially with the Babylonian captivity of the early 500s BC.
There was at least one synagogue in Jerusalem where Greek was almost certainly the language of worship--the "Synagogue of the Freedmen" (Acts 6:9). [1] A "freedman" was a former servant who had attained his or her freedom in some way. Sometimes the person had been a slave to work off a debt. Perhaps the person was granted freedom at the death of his or her owner. Some Jews no doubt became slaves during the wars of earlier centuries. At some point, some of these must have decided to move back to Jerusalem when they attained their freedom. Someone founded a synagogue where they could worship in their first language or at least a language they held in common.
Ministry was taking place within the Aramaic-speaking community of believers. Those with extra were sharing with those who did not have food or material resources. There was a ministry to widows, for example.
There was no welfare at the time. The community of believers would no doubt have applauded the Romans if they had taken care of those in need, but no such service existed. Widows and orphans were particularly vulnerable if they did not have extended family to take care of them. Women simply didn't have the opportunities to take care of themselves like we do today.
So there was a daily distribution of food...
[1] We might bear in mind that a synagogue at this time was a gathering more than anything else, not necessarily a gathering in a building. It is quite possible this synagogue took place in a building, but we do not really know. In villages, a synagogue might take place in its center, for example.
___________________
As long as we live on this earth, we will be susceptible to temptation. After all, even Jesus was tempted. Adam was tempted even though he did not have a "sin nature."
Some temptation comes because of a desire to sin (cf. James 1:14). But temptation can also come because a God-given desire is directed toward the wrong object. So the desire to have sex is God-given. The problem is when it is directed at someone who isn't your spouse. Temptation can also come when we find ourselves in new and unfamiliar situations.
For these reasons, no Christian individual ever gets to the point where he or she cannot be tempted to do the wrong thing. And the more people you have in a community, the opportunity for temptation multiplies exponentially. We should be optimistic about the power of God to help us resist the urge to do wrong, but we should also be realistic about the power and likelihood of temptation.
The early church was no more immune to temptation than other times and places in history. We like to think of the earliest Christians as saints. There's something about human nature that likes to think things were ideal in the past--not like they are today. But this dynamic of human culture has more to do with our forgetfulness than reality.
The story of Ananias and Sapphira is the first chink in our idealism about the earliest church. We can be sure that there were others like them who were pretending to share the virtues of authentic individuals like Barnabas. But deep down, their hearts were far from generous or virtuous. The early church had its hypocrites and pretenders, just like the church today.
Ananias and Sapphira did wrong intentionally. Individuals and communities of faith can also wrong others unintentionally. In no situation are we more likely to wrong someone unintentionally than when we are not aware of them, their needs, how they think or how they live. Conflict and misunderstanding are especially likely when we encounter people who are "other."
Acts 6 gives us an early conflict along these lines. Again, it is not clear that the earliest disciples were very aggressive about their mission. They seem to have spent most of their time praying and worshiping at the temple. They heal a lame man on their way to the temple. They end up preaching because of the stir that results when they heal him.
So Acts gives us no evidence that Peter or John went out of their way to make sure that Greek-speaking Jews--called Hellenists--would hear the good news about Christ. They seem to have heard unintentionally. Perhaps some of them were present on the Day of Pentecost. Perhaps there was talking going on in the Aramaic-speaking synagogues--the language of Jesus and Peter--and it spread to the Greek-speaking ones without anyone really thinking about it.
It was a cross-cultural situation ripe for complications and inadvertent mistakes. Leaders like Peter and John were not outward-focused at the time. They were looking "inward" and "upward." Ministry was taking place within the part of the community that was familiar. But Peter wasn't being proactive toward those outside the boundaries. He was in response mode to "outsiders" rather than missional mode.
It might be helpful to know that far more Jews lived outside of Jerusalem at the time of Christ than lived inside it. In fact more Jews lived in a fraction of a big city like Alexandria in Egypt than lived in all of Jerusalem. Greek was the business language of the Roman Empire, the "lingua franca." So far more Jews at the time of Christ likely spoke Greek than Aramaic, and they read the Old Testament in Greek.
It was thus understandable that part of the Jerusalem community would speak Greek. Some Jews inevitably were attracted to their homeland and made their way back to Palestine, just as happened in the last century after the nation of Israel was re-established. We call the Jews who were scattered around the world, "Diaspora" Jews. This dispersion had started centuries earlier, especially with the Babylonian captivity of the early 500s BC.
There was at least one synagogue in Jerusalem where Greek was almost certainly the language of worship--the "Synagogue of the Freedmen" (Acts 6:9). [1] A "freedman" was a former servant who had attained his or her freedom in some way. Sometimes the person had been a slave to work off a debt. Perhaps the person was granted freedom at the death of his or her owner. Some Jews no doubt became slaves during the wars of earlier centuries. At some point, some of these must have decided to move back to Jerusalem when they attained their freedom. Someone founded a synagogue where they could worship in their first language or at least a language they held in common.
Ministry was taking place within the Aramaic-speaking community of believers. Those with extra were sharing with those who did not have food or material resources. There was a ministry to widows, for example.
There was no welfare at the time. The community of believers would no doubt have applauded the Romans if they had taken care of those in need, but no such service existed. Widows and orphans were particularly vulnerable if they did not have extended family to take care of them. Women simply didn't have the opportunities to take care of themselves like we do today.
So there was a daily distribution of food...
[1] We might bear in mind that a synagogue at this time was a gathering more than anything else, not necessarily a gathering in a building. It is quite possible this synagogue took place in a building, but we do not really know. In villages, a synagogue might take place in its center, for example.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
My version of Acts 6: Hebrews and Hellenists
Thought I'd post here too this comment I made in one of our online classes about Acts 6:
_________
We all write little novels as we interpret these stories (it makes for good preaching). Shoving an experience into a string of words inevitably loses a lot of stuff, creates gaps that we all refill in when we retell the story in interpretation.
Here's my "little novel" of this incident in Acts 6. The Aramaic speaking Jews were the home team, the ones in power, ground zero. I'm not sure anyone meant to forget about the fact that there were Greek-speaking Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah too. But it was easy to think less of them. They didn't speak the home language. They came from somewhere else. "Did we run out of bread again before we go to you all? Rats."
Peter sounds a little irritated when someone else points out they are being missed out. "I have more important things to do than wait on tables. Let's find someone to take care of this." But the names of the committee hardly reads like a by-partisan committee of deacons (a word that is not actually used of these guys--what we actually find them all doing is preaching). The names are all Diaspora, Hellenistic. So what they did was appoint some of them, them others, to take care of themselves.
But God uses it. Stephen stirs up a real ruckus and ends up getting stoned, and the Hellenists are scattered. It is, I would argue, the Hellenists who take the gospel to Judea and Samaria (the apostles do not actually seem the target of the persecution--when Peter is, he leaves town).
_________
We all write little novels as we interpret these stories (it makes for good preaching). Shoving an experience into a string of words inevitably loses a lot of stuff, creates gaps that we all refill in when we retell the story in interpretation.
Here's my "little novel" of this incident in Acts 6. The Aramaic speaking Jews were the home team, the ones in power, ground zero. I'm not sure anyone meant to forget about the fact that there were Greek-speaking Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah too. But it was easy to think less of them. They didn't speak the home language. They came from somewhere else. "Did we run out of bread again before we go to you all? Rats."
Peter sounds a little irritated when someone else points out they are being missed out. "I have more important things to do than wait on tables. Let's find someone to take care of this." But the names of the committee hardly reads like a by-partisan committee of deacons (a word that is not actually used of these guys--what we actually find them all doing is preaching). The names are all Diaspora, Hellenistic. So what they did was appoint some of them, them others, to take care of themselves.
But God uses it. Stephen stirs up a real ruckus and ends up getting stoned, and the Hellenists are scattered. It is, I would argue, the Hellenists who take the gospel to Judea and Samaria (the apostles do not actually seem the target of the persecution--when Peter is, he leaves town).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
