Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Acts 6

This verse is not only one of the most important in Acts, it is also one of the most complicated and discussed verses in the entire book. What one concludes regarding the identity of “the Grecian Jews,” their relation to “the Aramaicspeaking community,” and their circumstances within the church largely affects how one understands the material in Luke’s second panel (6:8–9:31) and the whole course of events within the Jerusalem church. It is important, therefore, to understand as precisely as possible what Luke says and implies in describing “the Grecian Jews” (i.e, the Hellenists) within the early church, a group he introduces by the phrases “in those days” and “when the number of disciples was increasing.” As for differentiating the Hellenists from the believers of Hebrew background, scholars have made various suggestions: the Hellenists are (1) Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora who settled in Jerusalem among the native-born and Aramaic-speaking populace, (2) Jewish proselytes from a Gentile background, (3) Jews who were related in some manner to the Essene movement in Palestine, (4) the Samaritans, and (5) Jews (whether by birth or as proselytes) who spoke only Greek and no Semitic language such as Hebrew or Aramaic. Of these choices, the last one seems the best. It hurdles the difficulty of how Paul could call himself a Hebraic Jew even though he was from the Diaspora , it provides an explanation as to why Hellenistic synagogues were required in Jerusalem, and it offers an insight into the problem of why two of the seven men chosen in 6:5 (Stephen and Philip) appear almost immediately thereafter as evangelists within their own circle when they had actually been appointed to supervise more mundane concerns.

Probably, therefore, “the Grecian Jews” in Acts 6 were originally Hellenized Jews who had come from the Diaspora but who were now living in Jerusalem and had come under some suspicion (by reason of their place of birth, their speech, or both) of being more Grecian than Hebraic in their attitudes and outlook. Many of them, no doubt, had originally returned to the homeland out of religious ardor and today would be called Zionists. Perhaps they tended to group together because of their similar backgrounds and common language, as the many Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem would seem to indicate. Since coming to Jerusalem, they had become Christians. But since attitudes and prejudices formed before conversion are often carried over into Christian life—too often the unworthy more than the worthy ones—some of the problems between the Hebraic Jews and the Hellenistic Jews in the church must be related back to such earlier differences and prejudices.

In 6:1–6, Luke tells us that the Hellenists’ “widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.” Judaism had a system for the distribution of food and supplies to the poor, both to the wandering pauper and to those living in Jerusalem itself. The early Christian community at Jerusalem likewise expressed its spiritual unity in communal sharing of possessions and in charitable acts (cf. 2:44–45; 4:32–5:11). Apparently with the “increasing” number of believers and with the passing of time, the number of Hellenistic widows dependent on relief from the church became disproportionately large. Many pious Jews of the Diaspora had moved to Jerusalem in their later years in order to be buried near it, and their widows would have had no relatives near at hand to care for them as would the widows of the longtime residents. Nor as they became Christians would the “poor baskets” of the national system of relief be readily available to them. So the problem facing the church became acute.

The issue about the distribution of food may not have been all that disrupted the fellowship. It is likely that it was only the symptom of a larger tension between the two groups, opening up earlier prejudices. If the Hellenists spoke mostly in Greek, they may have required separate meetings within the Christian community, and these too could have brought back old resentments.

The apostles’ response in this matter was to call the Christians together and suggest a solution. It is significant that the apostles were not prepared simply to ignore the problem; they seem to have realized that spiritual and material concerns are so intimately related in Christian experience that one always affects the other for better or worse. Similarly, there was no attempt to assign blame or to act in any paternalistic fashion. Rather, they suggested that seven men “full of the Spirit and wisdom” be chosen from among the congregation (perhaps only from among the Hellenists) who could take responsibility in the affair. The apostles would give their attention exclusively “to prayer and the ministry of the word.” The reference to the apostles as “the Twelve” occurs only here in Acts (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5), though earlier Luke has spoken of “the Eleven” in such an absolute and corporate manner (cf. Lk 24:9, 33; Acts 2:14). Likewise, the references to Christians as “the disciples” here and in v.1 are the first instances of this usage in Acts, though in the remainder of the book it occurs fairly often. In using both these terms, Luke has gone back to the language of the earliest Christians and tried to make idiomatic use of it. The words “full of the Spirit and wisdom” evidently refer to guidance by the Holy Spirit and skill in administration and business, which, singly and together, are so necessary in Christian service. While Christian ministers wish such qualities were more characteristic of their own boards and councils, it is only fair to say that boards and councils often wish their ministers were given more “to prayer and the ministry of the word”! A pattern is set here for both lay leaders and clergy, and God’s work will move ahead more efficiently if it is followed carefully.

The apostles’ response in this matter was to call the Christians together and suggest a solution. It is significant that the apostles were not prepared simply to ignore the problem; they seem to have realized that spiritual and material concerns are so intimately related in Christian experience that one always affects the other for better or worse. Similarly, there was no attempt to assign blame or to act in any paternalistic fashion. Rather, they suggested that seven men “full of the Spirit and wisdom” be chosen from among the congregation (perhaps only from among the Hellenists) who could take responsibility in the affair. The apostles would give their attention exclusively “to prayer and the ministry of the word.” The reference to the apostles as “the Twelve” occurs only here in Acts (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5), though earlier Luke has spoken of “the Eleven” in such an absolute and corporate manner (cf. Lk 24:9, 33; Acts 2:14). Likewise, the references to Christians as “the disciples” here and in v.1 are the first instances of this usage in Acts, though in the remainder of the book it occurs fairly often. In using both these terms, Luke has gone back to the language of the earliest Christians and tried to make idiomatic use of it. The words “full of the Spirit and wisdom” evidently refer to guidance by the Holy Spirit and skill in administration and business, which, singly and together, are so necessary in Christian service. While Christian ministers wish such qualities were more characteristic of their own boards and councils, it is only fair to say that boards and councils often wish their ministers were given more “to prayer and the ministry of the word”! A pattern is set here for both lay leaders and clergy, and God’s work will move ahead more efficiently if it is followed carefully.

The apostles’ response in this matter was to call the Christians together and suggest a solution. It is significant that the apostles were not prepared simply to ignore the problem; they seem to have realized that spiritual and material concerns are so intimately related in Christian experience that one always affects the other for better or worse. Similarly, there was no attempt to assign blame or to act in any paternalistic fashion. Rather, they suggested that seven men “full of the Spirit and wisdom” be chosen from among the congregation (perhaps only from among the Hellenists) who could take responsibility in the affair. The apostles would give their attention exclusively “to prayer and the ministry of the word.” The reference to the apostles as “the Twelve” occurs only here in Acts (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5), though earlier Luke has spoken of “the Eleven” in such an absolute and corporate manner (cf. Lk 24:9, 33; Acts 2:14). Likewise, the references to Christians as “the disciples” here and in v.1 are the first instances of this usage in Acts, though in the remainder of the book it occurs fairly often. In using both these terms, Luke has gone back to the language of the earliest Christians and tried to make idiomatic use of it. The words “full of the Spirit and wisdom” evidently refer to guidance by the Holy Spirit and skill in administration and business, which, singly and together, are so necessary in Christian service. While Christian ministers wish such qualities were more characteristic of their own boards and councils, it is only fair to say that boards and councils often wish their ministers were given more “to prayer and the ministry of the word”! A pattern is set here for both lay leaders and clergy, and God’s work will move ahead more efficiently if it is followed carefully.

The apostles made a proposal, but the church, the community of God’s Spirit, made the decision. The apostles therefore laid their hands on the Seven and appointed them to be responsible for the daily distribution of food. The laying on of hands recalls Moses’ commissioning of Joshua in Nu 27:18–23, where through this act some of Moses’ authority was conferred on Joshua. That is evidently what the laying on of hands was meant to symbolize here, with the apostles delegating their authority to the seven selected by the church (cf. also 8:17; 9:17; 13:3; 19:6).

All seven men have Greek names; one of them is singled out as having been a Gentile convert to Judaism (i.e., a “proselyte”). But it is impossible to be sure simply from the names whether all seven were Hellenists, for at that time many Palestinian Jews also had Greek names. Nevertheless, the fact that Luke gives only Greek names suggests that all seven were in fact from the Hellenistic group within the church. Furthermore, Luke does not directly call these seven by the ecclesiastical title “deacon” (diakonos; GK 1356), even though he uses the cognate noun diakonia (“distribution”; GK 1355) in v.1 and the verb diakoneo (“wait on”; GK 1354) in v.2 for what they were to do. Yet the ministry to which the seven were appointed was functionally equivalent to what Paul covered in the title “deacon” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:8–13); in the NT ministry was a function long before it became an office.

Acts 6:1–6 is particularly instructive as something of a pattern for church life today. In the first place, the early church took seriously the combination of spiritual and material concerns in carrying out its God-given ministry. In doing so, it stressed prayer and the proclamation of the Word, but never to the exclusion of helping the poor and correcting injustices. And even when the church found it necessary to divide internal responsibilities and assign different functions, the early believers saw these as varying aspects of one total ministry.

Second, the early church seems to have been prepared to adjust its procedures, alter its organizational structure, and develop new posts of responsibility in response to existing needs and for the sake of the ongoing proclamation of the Word of God. Throughout the years various so-called restorationist movements in the church have attempted to reach back and recapture the explicit forms and practices of the earliest Christians and have tried to reproduce them as far as possible in their pristine forms, believing that in doing so they are more truly biblical than other church groups. But Luke’s narrative here suggests that to be fully biblical is to be constantly engaged in adapting traditional methods and structures to meet existing situations, both for the sake of the welfare of the whole church and for the outreach of the Gospel.

Finally, Luke’s account suggests certain restraining attitudes that could well be incorporated into contemporary churchmanship. Among these are (1) refusing to get involved in the practice of assigning blame where things have gone wrong, preferring rather to expend the energies of God’s people on correcting injustices, praying, and proclaiming the Word, and (2) refusing to become paternalistic in solving problems, which implies a willingness to turn the necessary authority for working out solutions over to others—even, as was possibly the case here, to those who feel the problem most acutely and may therefore be best able to solve it.