We cannot make a general judgment like “all Jews from the Diaspora were more liberal” or “all Jews from Jerusalem were more conservative.” These categories are derived from modern, Western ways of dividing an issue into opposing, black-and-white categories and highlighting the contrasts. It is entirely possible that a Jew living in a Roman city was very conservative on some aspects of the Law even though he lived and worked alongside Gentiles.
The apostle Paul is a good example of a diaspora Jew since he was a Jew from Tarsus, fluent in Greek but also able to call himself a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” in Philippians 3. He was conservative concerning keeping the law and traditions of the people. Yet he was a Roman citizen and seems to have had little problem functioning in the Greco-Roman world. The phrase “Hebrew of the Hebrews” in Philippians 3:4-6 can be taken in several ways. This phrase may mean that Paul was born of true Jewish blood and that there is no Gentile in his lineage. It is sometimes suggested that Paul refers to his ability to speak and read Hebrew. Not all Jews spoke the language, especially in the home. Paul claims to have come from a conservative Jewish family who maintained their distinctive Jewish practices even though they lived in Tarsus, far from Jerusalem. As J. B. Lightfoot once observed, Paul is making a progressive argument. A convert to Judaism may be circumcised. A few proselytes might claim a tribal affiliation, but Paul is a pure-bred true Jew! Paul believes that this heritage is of no value now that he is “in Christ,” but it seems evident that Paul’s Jewish heritage is one of the major factors behind his successful evangelism.
On the other hand, The High Priest, the Sadducees, and the Herodians appear to have been more relaxed concerning some aspects of the Law and had no real problem ruling alongside the Romans. But they were still concerned with keeping the Law and maintaining the Temple. It was, therefore, possible to be “extremely zealous” in the Diaspora and extremely lax while worshiping in the Temple regularly.
Some in the Jerusalem community in Acts 6 are more committed to Jewish Christianity and are finding differences with the Jews who are more Hellenistic in attitude. This leads to the appointment of the deacons but does not solve the ultimate problem. By Acts 11, Jews living in Antioch are willing to not only accept Gentiles as converts to Christianity, but by Acts 13, Paul is preaching the gospel to Gentiles who are not even a part of a synagogue! Since these Hellenistic Jews were more open to Gentiles in the fellowship, the more conservative Jews in Jerusalem began to persecute the apostolic community even more harshly, leading to the death of Stephen and the dispersion of the Hellenistic Jews.
Acts 6 does not imply that the problem was theological. It was entirely social (Witherington, Acts, 250). Some of the Hellenists felt slighted because their poor were not supported at the same level as the non-Hellenists. The word Luke uses (παραθεωρέω) in Acts 6:1 means that one “overlooks something due to insufficient attention” (BDAG). The neglect may not have been intentional, but it was a real problem that the Apostles needed to deal with quickly.
As we read Acts 6, how deep is the divide between these two groups? Looking ahead at what happens in Antioch, Galatia, and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), does this “Hebrew” vs. “Hellenist” divide foreshadow bigger problems?
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
The Diaspora Jews were Hebraic people who resided outside of Jerusalem or Israel, which might lead some people to believe that this group of people would be more “liberal” than Jews who lived in Jerusalem or Israel. However, this distinction is not historically or scripturally accurate, leaning too much upon modern separations of liberalism and conservatism in our distinctive world. As Long notes, Paul is an excellent example of a great and conservative Jew who resided outside of Israel and Jerusalem. He was a Roman citizen who spoke fluent Greek, yet was quite conservative in relation to Jewish tradition and law, more so than his own teacher Gamaliel! Furthermore, The Sadducees and the High Priest seemingly had little problem becoming more permissive of liberal views of the law and having a relationship with the Romans. They still kept Jewish tradition and law quite tightly, but it was not unheard of or unlikely to find conservative Diaspora Jews and more liberalized temple-attending Jews.
Acts 6 discusses how the difference between the Jerusalem-based Jews and Diaspora Jews who held more Hellenistic attitudes led to problems and difficulties. These issues resulted in the establishment of Deacons who would overlook these issues for the apostles, who could not give the necessary attention to the topic. The differences originated from the feelings of the Hellenistic Jews, who thought their poor people were not as attentively cared for as the non-Hellenistic Jews. Whether purposefully or due to simple ignorance is unknown, but interestingly, it was not a theological difference but a social issue that divided the people. Overall, this is all put together to say that regardless of potential hardship or early disagreement, it is not correct to simply assert that Hellenistic Jews were more liberal than temple-attending Jews.
I think that sometimes it is easy to make that mental association that because something is separated from the source, it might lose its essence and strength. In this case, we might think that Diaspora Jews are more liberal because of their geographical distance from Jerusalem, but Long just easily pointed out that the opposite might be a better assertion of the case. Even today we can see examples of this. For many years, US was a leader in sending missionaries to other countries. While I can easily go to church wearing sweatpants and the like here, in Latin countries that would be way more frowned upon. So, the influence of older American Christianity is still present there, while in US things have moved on. I would imagine devout Diaspora Jews would do their best to preserve their culture and it would not change and update in accord with the developments in Jerusalem. Then it becomes a big challenge when these more conservative Hellenists Jews hear about the Gospel. Their reaction tends to be more drastic and intense, as we see in the case of Stephen. As for the issue between Hebrews and Hellenists in Jerusalem, it seems to be more of lack of attention than an intentional affront, as explained by Long. But the divide between Jews and Greeks later in Acts has more to do with Jewish believers being concerned that Gentile believers were not practicing the customs of the Law like a Jew or a Proselyte would. In Acts 15, we see both Jews from Jerusalem and from the Diaspora proclaiming that Gentile converts should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Maybe this could still be seen as conservative versus liberal, but I would suggest it should be seen as a difference between the Judaic practices and the liberty found in Christ.
Whenever we talked about the DIaspora Jews I was really interested in learning how there really wasn’t much of a difference in the ‘liberalness’ compared to the Jews living within the city. Oftentimes when we begin to look at these issues, we completely forget that we see the ancient culture from a skewed perspective of our modern 21st century western lives. There truly are exceptions to every rule, and frankly quite a lot of those ‘exceptions’, this is what makes it impossible to generalize and stereotype groups of people from the ancient world, like the Diaspora Jews. The Apostle Paul sets a great example of this Diaspora in that he grew up outside the city but still kept to the law and kept it well. We also confuse these things as acts of religious difference when in reality the societal aspects of life are what made the biggest difference. I believe that’s how it is today, people often want the same things but have different methods than those who grew up in a different climate of society. People have this notion that the Diaspora Jews have been disconnected from the inner circle (those who lived in the city) and that therefore their methods are also more relaxed and disconnected. In truth as has been stated, this is not the case and is an extreme reach and overgeneralization.