After tracking the preaching of Peter and John, Luke turns to the activities of two non-apostles, Stephen and Philip in Acts 6-8. Both are Hellenistic Jews, and neither is numbered among the Twelve. It is possible these men were not followers of Jesus before Pentecost. They may have been among the crowd who heard. Yet, Stephen is the first martyr, and his speech summarized some important theological points in the transition between Peter’s ministry in Jerusalem and Paul’s mission in Acts 13. Philip is the evangelist who brings the Gospel to Samaria and to an Ethiopian, perhaps fulfilling the commission in Acts 1 to go to Samaria and the “ends of the earth.”
The end of Acts 5 reads like a summary statement of the first movement of the book of Acts, and the release from prison after Gamaliel’s speech marked a critical moment for the Jerusalem community. But there was more to that community than just the Jews from Jerusalem; many diaspora Jews attached themselves to the apostolic movement. The reason the apostles appoint deacons in Acts 6 is that Greek widows do not seem to be getting the same treatment as the “Hebraic Jews” (as the NIV translates 6:1). If the first five chapters concerned the Jewish community’s outreach to the Aramaic speakers in the temple. Chapters 6-8 are concerned with outreach to the Hellenistic Jewish community. This is not yet an expansion of the gospel to include Gentiles. Ethnically and theologically, the Hellenistic men are fully Jewish. We might discover that the Hellenistic Jews are more conservative on some issues than the Aramaic-speaking Jews.
This section is sometimes cited as an example of Luke creating a story to describe a smooth transfer of leadership from the Jewish followers of Jesus to the Hellenistic Jewish followers. But things are not as smooth as they appear. If Luke intended to create the image of a peaceful, unified church, he would not report complaints against the Apostles, especially if the complaint was favoritism (or worse) or mismanagement of funds collected for the poor. 
Acts 6:1 says that there was a problem between “Hebraic” and “Hellenistic” Jews. This must be explained carefully since the word “Jew” does not appear in the text (although English translations regularly include it). These are all Jews, but there seems to be a problem between the Jews who are in Jerusalem from the “outside” and those Jews who remained on “the inside.” Chapters 6-8 concern the activities of two Hellenistic Jews and their ministry outside of the circle of the apostles in Jerusalem. I suggest that Luke intentionally arranges several stories concerning Peter and John in chapters 2-4 and several stories about Stephen and Philip in chapters 6-8.
This is not necessarily a geographical division, although doubtless it often was. To be a “Hellenist” means to adopt the language and culture of the Greeks, while to be a “Hebrew” means to adopt a more traditional Jewish language and lifestyle. For Ben Witherington, language is the main issue (Acts, 240-247, for an excellent excursus on the Hellenists). On the other hand, Darrell Bock agrees more with my sketch of the Hellenists (Acts, 258-9). Language is an important issue, but it is not the only issue separating the Greeks from Judean Jews. There was a spectrum of practice, with the Qumran community on one end (extremely traditional, so the Temple was too sinful for them) and someone like Philo of Alexandria’s nephew on the other (who abandoned his Jewish heritage to join the Hellenistic government of Egypt). Most Jews, even in Jerusalem, were somewhere between these two extremes.
Aside from historical accuracy, does this view of the Hellenistic Jews matter for reading Acts? I think it helps to understand that the community of earliest believers was far more diverse than Acts 2-5 would imply. If Peter and John represent the only form of the early followers of Jesus, then it is hard to explain the violent suppression of Stephen. This diversity is less a “development” in the earliest church but a factor present from the beginning.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
I appreciate this post! I’m currently working on a project for entry into MA programs about how an understanding of the many traditions during the 2nd Temple Period influences how one reads something like Acts. More specifically, I’m examining how the Pseudepigrapha tend to present Jewish/Gentile relations before 70 A.D.
I like this!
Great topic for an MA project, where are you looking to study?
Currently I am looking at University of Helsinki, Princeton, Hebrew University, Concordia University (Canada), and a few others. I’ll begin nailing down the schools to apply to around May.
A common thread through out humanity be it Hebrew or gentile is that one group will discriminate against another picking out physical features dress language what ever is different from themselves or the accepted norm of the dominate culture. We can look to the political setting today in the U.S. this being a election year, look at the fictionalized in fighting between gop members and the democrats. They fight with one another until a opposing force comes at them then they unify. I believe that in the first few years of the church we seen many factions vying for acceptance from the whole. In the end result the truth won out. The church established the acceptable doctrine that was pleasing to all the faction by enlarge. Others spun off and into oblivion. If in doubt look to the changing of the guard from Peter to James and son on. The church is a living breathing organism that is growing day by day.
.
Why was there enough Hellenists to lodge a complaint about food distribution? Where did all the Hellenist widows come from? Did they wander into Jerusalem for the senior buffet? How were they able to appoint so many Greek-named men to help? And why did so many men from various geographic locations rise up against Stephen (6:9)? Seems like a lot of “foreign” Jews around Jerusalem for a long time after Pentecost.
How about this: They were Christian Hellenistic Jews who were convinced Jesus was the messiah and was about to return at any moment, so why return home? Why not stay in Jerusalem until Jesus returns?
You maybe forget that Peter and John were put in prison for their sermons! Angels intervened.
What I find interesting is not the fact that there were different sects of Judaism, but more the division between the idea of integration with the culture. It is clear even today that every religion has different aspects of conservative vs. liberal beliefs. Yet often it seems that one of the big discussions is how much one should be of the world, but not in the world. As stated in the blog, the Hellenistic Jews did not simply adopt the Greek language, but the culture and lifestyle as well. Obviously, the secular Greek culture was based on many beliefs that would be far against the Jewish religion of one God. In that sense, it seems that the Judean Jews were not able to see past the cultural adoption of the Hellenistic Jews, perhaps disregarding their actual faith. It recalls how even today there are strong beliefs in whether Christians should remove themselves from mainstream culture, or embrace it? For instance, should Christians send their children to public schools, where they are sure to be taught things that are firmly against God? Or do they send them with the hope of growing stronger in their faith? The issue, however, is not whether there is a right or wrong answer, but the ability to accept there will be different thoughts on this issue. This does not make some more religious, or some more filled with faith. And this seems to have been where the division between the Hellenist and Judean Jews lay. Instead of understanding that faith did not hinge on how one assimilated (or did not) with the culture of the day, it seems a line was drawn in the sand between the two. Could a Hellenist Jew assimilate and accept some parts of the Greek culture while rejecting ideas which were contrary to their Jewish faith? I think the answer is yes, just as much as believers today can do the same.
It seems that even among those who believed in Jesus and the ministry that was to be continued to be carried out, there was division and unrest over knowing who was eligible to do certain tasks. It seems that between the Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews, there was a misunderstanding as to what was expected of each group as the diversity of the early church meant that a lot of cultural aspects were being brought together. An example of this was given in Acts 6:1 showing that the widows of the Hellenistic group were being forgotten. Polhill notes that this passage seems to be only one of many serious theological frictions that were happening between the two groups (2092). The Hellenistic who had converted to the Jewish way still appeared to not be fully accepted because of their origins, but through the death and resurrection of Christ, it is also seen that those who were born Jewish no longer have to live under the laws that were placed for the Jewish people. If the first 5 chapters are intentionally about Peter and John and 6-8 are about Stephen and Philip to show the ministry of both Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews, then it seems that Luke is trying to tell his readers that each group is now as equally important as the other.
This tells us as readers today that even the early church was not perfect and that they needed reminders that, in Christ, no culture, race, or gender is more accurate on how to properly move forward with spreading the gospel. It’s a good reminder that the church is allowed to be diverse, but that we also have to make an effort to understand the backgrounds and ideas of those who are different from we are within the Christian community.
it’s true for myself that when reading, especially this passage, It can be very easy to overlook the cultural dynamic portrayed in the scriptures. Especially in this passage. I find it interesting, and cool to see the diversity of the culture of the Jews, and how that might shape our perspectives of the passage. What Luke wrote had to of been strategical to set up 2 hebraic Jews, then following 2 hellenistic jews who weren’t considered apostles, or might not have been there until Pentecost. Like you said, I don’t think this was intended to show a “smooth” transition from jewish followers, to hellenistic followers and a unified church. If this was his intent, he proably would have strayed from speaking of conflict and issues they were having. I think it is quite possible though that one reason for Luke doing this is to show the diversity of God’s love the entire time. Like you had said, not a development, but what it already is. A diverse group in of itself that, although has struggled with favoritism, God’s love does not. And his open arms are equally for all those who believe in Him.
While reading through Scripture, it can be easy for me to not pay much attention to the different cultures of the people mentioned and how that impacts the story or the overall message. Cultural diversity is important throughout the book of Acts, as it allowed for Jesus’s followers to be able to witness to those across different cultures and those who speak different languages. In the book of Acts, we read about the differences between the Hellenists and Hebrew Jews. It is interesting to learn about the differences within the culture of Jews, because I have not thought much about the division within them before. Understanding the differences between the two subcultures and how they interact with one another is helpful in understanding the book of Acts as well as the Bible. Polhill (2008) states, “The Hellenists were Greek-speaking Jews from the Diaspora (‘dispersed’ Jews living outside Palestine). … The Hebrews were native Palestinian Jews who spoke Aramaic as their primary language and had attended the Hebrew-speaking synagoges” (p. 2092). As P. Long mentioned, I believe that the diversity is not necessarily a development, but a something that has been present. However, it is not always implied in Acts 2-5. Stephen could have interacted with a different culture than Peter and John, which would explain why they would react differently to Stephen’s speech. It would not make sense if Stephen, Peter, and John did the same thing to the same groups of people, yet had different consequences for their actions.
The idea of Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews is a very interesting topic because it showed that there is diversity between Jews. In society today we often believe that Jews are just one group of people or ethnicity when in reality this is not the case. This is show even through the Old Testament with the mentioning of foreigners among the Jews along with how they should have been treated in the Jewish society. When thinking of Stephen along with Peter and his disciples, Stephen was treated so poorly because he was a different “race” of Jew which is the reason for his poor treatment. The people were not open to someone looking different than them preaching which could be why he was stoned to death. Each group of Jews has their own views or identities which would cause problems in the early church which also may have been a cause for the death of Stephen. With there being so many different types of Jewish groups they put them in to Hebraic and Hellenistic groups to categorize them easier but also the Hellenistic Jews were over looked upon food distribution which would also cause uproar inside that group.
This part of Acts for me has been super confusing to read and understand. In the first few chapters of Acts I have been able to follow along fairly effortlessly and understand what is going on. Now it’s a bit more confusing and it started around Acts 4 and 5. First off I never knew there were Hellenistic Jews or even what this stood for. As I read through acts and this blog post in particular I see that the early Christian community was more diverse and complex than it may seem at first glance. I have also never heard of Stephen and Phillip before. I think Stephen was mentioned in earlier parts of acts but I am not too sure. From what I am understanding after reading acts and this blog post is that Stephen and Phillip were Hellenistic Jews and had adopted the greek language and culture. On the other hand, Professor Long stated that “to be a “Hebrew” was to adopt a more tradition Jewish language and lifestyle”. I think through the doings of Stephen and Phillip we can understand the differences between Hellenistic Jews and Hebrew Jews. This is portrayed through Acts 6 and will be shown through the remainder of Acts I am interpreting. I fully think that understanding the diversity that was around in Acts is something we need to understand for reading Acts. “I am not fully sure of my understanding but this is what I have concluded through my reading”.
Acts 6 introduces some new characters in the storyline of the early church in Jerusalem. There are two sides to the Jews: the Hebraic and the Hellenistic Jews. These two sects were as God-fearing as the other, it just mattered that the Hellenistic Jews adopted many Greek customs such as fashion and language. Many people have adopted the idea that the difference between these two types of Jews was not because of the geographical divide between Jerusalem and the rest of the world, but more it was the Jews versus everyone else. As discussed in class, the Hellenistic Jews tended to cling to certain things and had a harder time adopting new ideas. Understanding the difference between these branches of Judaism will help you recognize the seriousness and momentousness of Stephen acting as the first martyr of the early church. The concept of Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews was something that I had not heard of before reading this blog post. Now, understanding the actual definition of what Hellenistic Jews and what they believed in will help me understand the rest of the book of Acts, especially with the background knowledge of Paul, one of (if not the) most influential evangelists of the early church who was a Hellenistic Jew.
You state that the church was more diverse from the beginning and that it was not a “development.” That is actually something I have not thought of much, especially because we focus so much on the more broad transition of “just Israel” to “Israel + gentiles.” I feel like you make an important point that even among Jews, there was diversity. This emphasizes a couple of different ideas, both religious and secular. To start with religious, it emphasizes that Christ welcomes many different people even of different culture and class to be a part of his body (his church). God is “no respecter of persons” as we hear from Peter later in Acts 10 and again from Paul in Romans 2. He didn’t favor one Jew over the other. A step further, it is emphasized later that there is neither “Jew nor Greek,” but that is not necessarily the focus of this passage as we are speaking Jew vs. Jew (hellenistic jew/jew of Greek ways). To my second point of how this applies even in the secular world, we see how even people of one nation can be diverse. Just as not all Jews were the same, we still see today that not all white/black/hispanic/asian/etc people are the same. There’s always sub-cultures within cultures. There’s always differences even among the different.
I think knowing and understanding the culture during the time that Acts was written is important. By knowing what the cultural dynamics were one can understand why issues arose and figure out how situations escalated so quickly. There was a large division between the Hellenistic Jews and the traditional Hebrew Jews, mostly because of the language barrier. Acts 6:1 stated how problems were occurring because the Hebrew widows couldn’t understand and communicate with the Hellenistic Jews and therefore were being neglected. Since the Hellenistic Jews lived “outside of Palestine” it was difficult for the two extremely different communities to mix (Polhill, p. 2092). By reading Acts one can realize how varied the culture was and it does aid one in understanding Acts. I think what P. Long mentioned about the issue between the Jews during the stoning of Stephen was most definitely accurate. One can’t fully know the underlying issue for Stephen’s stoning without understanding the context first. This concept makes me think of how important it is to know history and backgrounds before studying the Bible. Without an in-depth study, many misinterpretations can be formed.