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. 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?
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 3, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Laurence Angell
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.
February 3, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Phillip J. Long
I will be getting the whole conversion / calling of Paul in upcoming posts, and I will likely make a comment on the problem of chronology between Galatians and Acts as well. I hate to give you the politician’s answer, but I really do have those “coming soon”!
As for the stoning of Stephen, this is a great question. I think that it is better to call this a “lynching,” and illegal execution which the Romans did not particularly approve, but since this is a Jewish in-fight, they probably did not care a great deal if it did not lead to further disturbances. I think their concern would be for the treatment of Roman citizens (to ensure they received due process of the law), or for rebels like Jesus or Barabbas (to make a public spectacle and send a message to other would-be rebels). Since this is a Jewish mob action, I think that the sudden passionate outburst is outside of Roman law and practice, but they also thought the Jews were barbaric in the first place.
February 4, 2013 at 9:15 am
nick_mascorro
The divide between the Hellenist Jew and the Hebrew Jew was apparent in this scripture reading but also throughout Acts. This is because people like Saul had a devote occupation of persecuting these Hellenistic Jews. Like is discussed in the post, “Hellenistic Jews are more open to Gentiles in the fellowship, the more conservative Jews in Jerusalem began to persecute them.” So that is why I believe that the very root of Stephen’s death may have fallen on this constant conflict. The tension between these two groups was so evidently displayed throughout the events that took place with Stephen because opposition arose from the “Traditional” Jews and they began to argue with Stephen (Acts 6:9). It was obvious that there was jealousy between these traditional Jews and Stephen the Hellenistic Jew. In Acts 6:10 this jealousy is displayed, “But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.” This shows that God had blessed Stephen with abilities that he had not blessed these Jews with which sparked in them jealousy. This jealousy eventually leads to them making false accusations against Stephen. So this is why I believe that Stephen’s death can be attributed to the tension between the two groups and the jealousy that arose from the Jews that were not blessed with the spirit. Stephen was not only disliked for his power that he first displayed (Acts 6:8), but what ultimately lead to the climax hatred from the people was when he gave his speech calling them out on the very things that they were doing wrong just like their forefathers (Acts 7: 51).
February 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm
notcrudd
I think that the divide is great and un-bridge-able (I think I may have made up a word there) for many. Reading this post and Acts ch. 6, I couldn’t help but think of the great divide we have today between liberals and conservatives and the harsh discussions, arguments, debates, and sometimes fights over issues between these groups. While I don’t think it is quite the same situation today as it was in the day of Luke, there are similarities. One group was more accepting of outsiders who wanted to join the faith, probably bringing a lot of baggage and new/strange ideas into the mix, and there were those who thought they would be better off without accepting such people and ideas into the faith. I do believe that this foreshadows the bigger issues that the groups will disagree on later and I think that Christians today can also learn from this situation. While we need to be against sin and sinful nature, we should be accepting of sinners who want to change. Everyone, after-all, was once a sinner no better than them until they accepted the gift of Salvation through Christ.
February 4, 2013 at 8:46 pm
Hilary Rolff
I agree with the stance that Bock takes. Language “is not the only issue separating the Greek from the Judean Jew.” As P.Long quotes later “it was entirely social.” Culture runs deep and it is something that divides humanity. It is the beliefs and way of life that manifests itself in characteristics and actions of a particular group. For the Jews who adopted the culture of the Greeks, life would have been very different in comparison to the Hebraic Jews. The culture of the Greeks did not follow the Mosaic Law; they may not have followed laws such as “circumcision, the kosher food laws and many requirements involving external purity and various kinds of sacrifices and festivals” (ESV notes 15:1). These laws would have been difficult for Greeks and Hellenistic Jews to follow within there own communities. These two groups lead completely different lives, from their daily routine to their way of thinking. Just this would have caused a natural and possibly unintentional divide between people.
This divide does foreshadow even bigger problems when we get to Acts 15 and now the divide is deeper thanks to a new, biologically different group of people, the Gentiles. In Acts 15 we see “the issue was whether Gentiles needed to become Jews and follow Jewish ceremonial laws in order to be Christians”. (ESV notes 15:1-5) For Gentiles to become Christians without going through the Jews would have been something unthinkable, because these to groups, Jew and Gentile, have been divided for thousands of years.
February 4, 2013 at 11:30 pm
jbefus
I think that Hilary is right in saying that culture runs deep in people. I think that the Hebrew vs. Hellenistic divide was even more than a cultural divide as it was their beliefs. The Jewish believers there did not receive revelation from God saying that the gospel is for Gentiles too, they had to take Paul’s word for it and also the apostles. Jews only knew of one way to be part of God’s people so they were very upset when people claimed to accept the gospel without carrying out the Jewish customs. This divide is more than just culture, it can become a difference of belief in the gospel. Is it by grace for all, or is it still through the Law and Jewish belief along with grace? The divide has the potential to be big, and it does prove to be. This becomes obvious in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council. Some were teaching that in order to be saved, one must be circumcised. However, this brought about a lot of controversy and debate among the believers. That is why James, in Acts 15 concludes that they ‘should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’ (Acts 15:19).
February 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Chris A
As has always been the case, humanity fails a following God’s plan again. He wanted us to live in unity as Christians and to spread the good news. Instead, we immediately break apart and begin to point fingers and even go so far as to kill each other based on our beliefs. While many things were happening at once and Paul was changing a lot of what people believed, we, as Christians, still had no right to begin a divide in the Church that to this day, still stands. You could even call it a generational sin in the Church itself. (By “Church” here I mean the people of the body of Christ)
I do believe that this divide was the beginning of something bigger. I believe that it is part of the reason that we as a Church today fail to get along. I believe that this was part of the reason that we have so many different beliefs. I believe that it is a key reason as to why we simply cannot talk about things beyond Christ and not get angry with each other. As fallen human beings, we fail at everything. let’s just say that I can not wait until we can move on into whatever God has planned for us next, because I am getting sick of seeing us fail time and time again.
February 4, 2013 at 11:22 pm
nfisher2013
The divide between the Hellenists and the Hebrews seems to be great, as I read Acts 6. Though the neglect was possibly unintentional, as P. Long stated, it is still an indication that they Hellenists and the Hebrews were at great odds. Further in the chapter, another indication presents itself. Stephen, a Hellenist, is preaching the gospel to the people, and other men, who are Hebrews, attempt to argue and fight with him. However, Stephen bests them in every argument. This also indicates the division of the Jews. They disagree on many theological topics. Though not violent, the Hebrews tried to best Stephen but could not. The culmination of the divide is presented later in Acts 7, where Stephen preaches to the elders. The Hebrews, furious with Stephen’s preaching, decide to kill him. This presents a violent aspect to the division of the Hellenists and the Hebrews. Now, this is not to say that the Hellenists weren’t ever violent, but it is not recorded in Scripture. The division is also seen much later in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem. Here , the Hellenists and Hebrews argue over circumcision and whether or not it is required. Ultimately, it is decided that converts need not be circumcised. This council, along with Acts 6, shows that there was a great division between Hellenists and Hebrews for some time.
February 5, 2013 at 12:02 am
steveroemer
Isn’t it always a rumor that starts bad things in the Church? This passage is a really good example of how many churches are acting today. We see in Acts 6:11 “They secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”" It never takes much to get people in an uprising against somebody doing something “wrong” in church. We also see just how far these “Godly” people will go in order to get rid of someone they do not like. A little further in the book we see Hebrews and Hellenists fighting over circumcision as Nick stated in his comment. This divide is similar to the debate about baptism and also the debate of whether to follow John Wesley’s theology or John Calvin’s. There will almost always be a divide because people will not agree on everything. The divide in these two groups is very deep and will last for quite a while. Or atleast until there is another divide.
February 5, 2013 at 1:34 am
zac_schutte
It is definitely clear that there is a divide between the Hellenistic and Traditional Jews. This divide is obviously a foreshadowing of future struggle and conflict. This is clear in the future readings of Acts, and is directly stated in Acts 22:17-18 and 21, when Paul ois explaining himself before a mob in Jerusalem.
“When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at teh temple, I fell into a trance and saw the lord speaking. ‘Quick!’ he said to me. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediantly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.” “Then he Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”
Clearly, both Paul and God recognized the conflict that is arroused between people of different religious practices. What is apparent is that Traditional Jews were given a chance to accept the Gospel, but as Hilary stated, “its a cultural thing.” Rather than realize that the savior has come and accept the Gospel for truth, Traditional Jews hold dearly to the Law and Moses. However, Hellenistic Jews not only embrace the Gospel over the Law, but also accept the idea that the Gospel is not restrictive to Israel. This is the culture roadblock for many Traditional Jews. These believers may still be holding on to the belief that God’s renewal is meant for only Israel, as promised so many years ago to Abraham. It appears that when the Hellenistic Jews begin to preach that salvation is available for all, that Traditional Jews may be a little irked to realize that their rejection of the Messiah and the Holy Spirit, as Stephen points out to them in Acts 7:51-53, has caused them to reject God’s new convenant. They cling dearly to tradition rather than embrassing the reality of the savior. I believe this is at the core of the conflict between Hellenistic and Traditional Jews in Acts.
February 6, 2013 at 9:04 pm
cameronlowe5
I think that there is a huge divide here between the Hellenistic Jews and the Hebraic Jews. It is significant that this divide is purely based on non theological things and more of a social difference. It is kind of like the divide within our country when the civil rights movement was coming about. We where all Americans but we hd differing views on who could or could not have rights as an American. That gap to this day is still not closed, there is just a crappy wooden bridge between the two sides. This gap is still around to this day, it may not be as big or as wide but it is still there. We still have Jews who differ on the same exact things that they did way back when! This gap caused and continued to cause many problems for the apostles who were trying to carry out the message of Jesus to everyone, even the gentiles, OH NO! IT cause hurt, persecution and death, Stephen was just living out his call when he was brought to trial and was then stoned. That gap took lives but it did not stop the apostles mission, their call. If anything it spurred them on, drove them to practice hat they were preaching. We should be using this to spur us on, it should be an encouragement to us to keep on telling of the good news. Don’t let the gaps that we have now stop us from spreading the Good News, let it spur you on!