Acts 6-8 describe the activities of two non-apostles, Stephen and Philip. Both are Hellenistic Jews and neither is numbered among the 12. Yet Stephen is the first martyr and his speech summarizing 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.”
Acts 6:1 says that there was a problem between “Hebraic” and “Hellenistic” Jews. (See this post on the Hellenists.)This needs to be explained carefully, since the word “Jew” does not appear in the text (although English translations regularly include it). Obviously these are all Jews, but there seems to be problem between the Jews who are in Jerusalem from “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 would suggest here that Luke has intentionally arranged several stories concerning Peter and John in chapters 2-4, and several stories concerning Stephen and Philip in chapters 6-8.
This is not necessarily a geographical division, although doubtless it often was. To be a “Hellenist” was to adopt the language and culture of the Greeks, while to be a “Hebrew” was to adopt a more tradition Jewish language and lifestyle. For Ben Witherington, language is the main issue (see Acts 240-247, for an excellent excursus on the Hellenists). Bock, on the other hand, 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 Greek from Judean Jew.
We cannot make a general judgment like “all Jews from the Diaspora were more liberal” or that “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 a Jew living in a Roman city was very conservative on some aspects of the Law even though he lived and worked along side Gentiles.
Paul is the best example of this 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 certainly quite conservative with respect to 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. On the other hand, The High Priest, the Sadducees and Herodians appear to have been more relaxed concerning some aspects of the Law and had no real problem ruling alongside of 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 a 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 Christianity, by Acts 13 Paul is preaching the gospel to Gentiles who are not even a part of a synagogue!
Since these Hellenistic Jews are more open to Gentiles in the fellowship, the more conservative Jews in Jerusalem begin to persecute the apostolic community even more harshly, leading to the death of Stephen and the dispersion of the Hellenistic Jews.
The text in 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 be intentional, but it was a very real problem which 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, in Galatia, and in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), does this “Hebrew” vs. “Hellenist” divide foreshadow bigger problems?
I really don’t understand a couple of things you mentioned even though they area mentioned or described in Acts. Paul says in Galatians that his first visit to Jerusalem was three years after his “call” or “revelation” (he never says “conversion”). I know some say that he meant that it was his first visit after his calling. Also, from what I have read about the Romans, they did not allow executions of any kind unless they did it. They were very fussy about who could be executed and how it was done: strangulation, beheading, or crucifixion. And crucifixion was only for rebellious people against the Roman rule. Please explain the Stephan stoning and why Paul says that his first visit to Jerusalem was three years after his calling.
Reblogged this on James' Ramblings.
This could be an issues for both parties because both parties share the same common faith and yet vast major differences in the outworking aspect because of its geographical and cultural differences. In secular view, this is considered to be two differents sets of cultures coming together, but because of cultures differences there are some boundaries and set of beliefs that are being preoccupied by each individual in accordance with their cultures influences which is then a stumbles block to unity between the two. This is undeniable facts, its just the way it is, we all were raised and taught by in the cultures that we lives (culturally constructed) in terms of tradition, faith, beliefs, moral and worldview. For examples, I was racially and culturally raised by the Chin/Hakha cultures which taught me many sacred things and moral standard that has embedded in my heart and nothing will change that, although I am a Christian fully conforming to the teaching of the bible in every aspect, but at the same time, there are some aspect of cultural things that I values and honor. We can apply the same implication here, the Hebrew Jews, who were raised racially and culturally by their Hebrew cultures, and the Hellenistic Jew, who were culturally constructed by the Greek cultures and that can be a huge issue with the Hebrew speaking Jews Christian. Whereas, the Hebrew speaking Jews, are more conservative in their beliefs due to the influences of their cultures, and on the hand, Hellenistic Jews were more liberal, because they are not that conservative or values the root tradition of the Jews, as much the Hebrew Jews. Even Peter was refraining himself to eat the gentile christian and it is obvious that his major restraints was because of his traditional view. So, yes, this is definitely an issue between the two, because although they share in the same common faith and beliefs system, but because of its geogrphyoical and cultural difference, its causes a boundary and limit between the two.
In Acts 6-8 we start to see a divide between two different groups the problem is between the “Hebraic” and “Hellenistic” Jews. Now the question is, is there a real divide between these two different groups and is the divide as bad as it makes it seem? The difference between these two groups is the Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek. They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem. To identify them, Luke uses the term Hellenistic. I have read other articles and books about the divide between the Hebrews and the Hellenists and some say that the divide between them wasn’t as deep as it is put out to be. Like Long says in his blog, Acts 6 does not imply that the problem was theological – it was entirely social. The Hellenists had felt some type of way because there was no attention towards them as much as any of the other Jews, one thing that was a problem was the fact that because you were slightly poor they were not supported the same as non-Hellenists, there was nothing between the two groups that they would hardly clash about theological more of the social norms. The divide between these two groups that could create a bigger problem for the future is that the adoption of Hellenistic ideas reshaped Roman culture and society, laying the foundations for the modern world. This can change things that are happening now.
When reading Acts 6-8, we can see a divide between the Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews. This divide has caused a conflict where the apostles must get involved and address the situation. The Hellenistic Jews complain that their widows are being overlooked in the distribution of food. This may apply to the fact that there is a language barrier at play and preventing equal treatment. While both groups are upset with each other, we are already seeing a divide. I wonder if this is the first conflict within the beginning of the church that starts a ripple effect, and more conflicts will come. Looking at what happens in Antioch, Galatia, and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, this Hebraic vs. Hellenist divide may foreshadow bigger problems. In Acts 15, Paul (in Antioch) confronts Peter over his withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers. This may be seen as a continuation of the tension between Jewish and Gentile believers that was present in Acts 6. In Galatia, Paul must contend with a group of Jewish Christians who insist that Gentile converts must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses, which is another manifestation of the divide between Jewish and Gentile believers. These conflicts suggest that the divide between the Gentile and Jewish believers may become a concern within the early church. The divide between the Hebraic and Hellenists may just be one factor of the larger picture.