Preserving Unity

Introduction:

The New Testament emphasizes the importance of congregational unity.

We are not to be divided over:

Status

Ethnicity

Power

We are to grow together in the fullness of the stature of Christ.

Churches, in the New Testament, do a number of things other than worship together:

Care for those who are indeed widows.

James 1:27 speaks of caring for orphans and widows as something “religious” or pious.

Care for those who are unable to care for themselves by working (implied in 2 Thessalonians 3).

We must remain cautious about protecting the unity of the congregation.

Background

Luke has described positives:

The growth of the number of believers who became part of the congregation.

The unity of the congregation in the face of opposition.

The boldness of the apostles as they faced opposition.

The benevolence of those with wealth to help care for the congregation.

Luke has layered the mounting issues for the apostles:

They teach the congregation.

They have money to administer.

They teach publicly.

They have been arrested and beaten severely.

We now will see the source of the first serious threat to congregation unity.

A Growing Complaint

Luke provides no specific time frame for the events in question.

We only know, generically, that it occurred “in these days with the disciples increasing.”

This could refer to any time since the Day of Pentecost.

The “complaint” came to be, according to Luke, by the Hellenists toward the Hebrews.

More than likely this distinction refers to linguistic and cultural distinctions.

Many remained in Jerusalem after the Day of Pentecost to continue in the apostles’ teaching.

The presence of many Hellenized Jews in the city has prompted the need to sell property on an as needed basis to help take care of people.

The oversight happened as a matter of course. It was not a one time event.

We get insight into the daily practices of benevolence on the part of the congregation.

From the context, the apostles must have assumed responsibility for taking care of these widows.

Their oversight was not intentional.

The apostles were “occupied.”

The Apostolic Solution

Luke refers to “the twelve” by that name only in Acts 6:2.

They summoned “the majority of the disciples” to place upon them the responsibility for taking care of this matter.

We get that sense from the phrase “the crowd/majority” of the disciples.

They begin by explaining what was at stake:

It was not “pleasing” for them to abandon the word of God.

Presumably, they mean more than their personal preferences.

They refer to the ministration to the widows as “to be serving tables.”

No doubt this carries with it the idea that widows were provided their daily meals through the benevolence of the congregation.

Acts 6:3 explains the recommended process:

The congregation was to investigate and select seven men who had:

Impeccable reputations

Full of spirit and wisdom: this points to maturity more than anything else.

The apostles would appoint them to this “need.”

They would dedicate themselves to public meetings for worship and the ministry of the word.

This pleased the group.

Introduction: Part 2

So much changes for the first church with the selection of the Seven.

They have faced opposition, but the Council had been unable to do anything about the Apostles because of their popularity among the people.

The public has also held them all in high regard even if they are reticent to join their group.

We saw that Luke sets the selection of the Seven in the time of growth.

He ended that account with another time of growth.

Things will no longer be the same, now.

The Congregation’s Choices

The group chose seven men about whom we know very little.

Philip

Prochoros

Nicanor

Timon

Parmenas

Nicolas: he was a convert from Antioch (something according to Josephus that was very common, there).

The apostles placed their hands on them, thus, commissioning them or appointing them to this service.

This resulted in the continued growth of the word and the increase in the number of the disciples.

Stephen and the Changing Circumstances

Luke describes Stephen as full of grace and power, and he was doing portents and signs among the people.

What becomes obvious, here, is that for a moment, he looks no different that Peter or one of the apostles in the public sphere.

He was more than a “deacon” in the sense of someone who cared for widows.

He was apparently active among those who attended a Hellenistic synagogue.

Peter dealt with arrest, imprisonment, and beatings.

Stephen faces resistance in a completely different way.

A New Dynamic

Stephen’s opposition came from some who were part of the Libertine synagogue.

This may have been discovered in 1913-1914.

Libertines refer to freedmen, that is individuals who had been former slaves.

Some think it could refer to as many as five synagogues (looking at the place names).

These may have been Jews who had been taken by Pompey to Rome as slaves nearly a century before and who, upon manumission, returned to the homeland and constructed their own synagogue.

They could not oppose the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke.

They resorted to bribing individuals to say things about Stephen publicly. They;

Accuse him of blasphemy against Moses and God.

Move the people, the elders, and the scribes.

Standing up, they seized him and brought him to the Council.

They produced false witnesses.

What Is Believable

It would be consistent with the message of Jesus for Stephen to have argued the following:

Jesus transcends Jewish customs such as:

Festivals and holy days (see Galatians 4:10).

The necessity of circumcision.

The dietary laws.

There would be forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple for their rejection of Jesus.

If Stephen taught any but the latter, he would understand the implications of Jesus’ person even better than the apostles.

Peter will have to learn this in dramatic fashion.

This will always be an inherent tension from a Jewish perspective.

The court looked upon him in some kind of unique fashion.

They recognized he was no ordinary individual.

They could not identify him with Jesus as they had Peter and John.

Their perception, perhaps, is that he was some kind of divine messenger.

Stephen parallels Jesus.