biblestudy: Acts (Part Seven)
Acts 5 & 6 Confrontation with the Sanhedrin and Stephen's Testimony
John W. Ritenbaugh
Given 11-Oct-88; Sermon #BS-AC07; 65 minutes
Description: (show)
Back to the book of Acts. We are ready to go into Acts the 5th chapter and proceed in following Luke's account of what happened in the early New Testament church. And chapter 5 begins with what was surely a sensational albeit somewhat distressing event that took place very early, apparently, in the church's history. That, of course, is the deceit and the subsequent deaths of Ananias and Sapphira.
Now, in chapter 4, we have a very positive insight into church life and what they were doing and how they were sharing everything and how everything seemed to be going along just so smoothly. The church was growing, and it almost seemed as though they were on such a spiritual high that there was no disagreement, no distressing problems, no prejudice, no respect of persons. Everything was just hunky-dory, as they say.
But then chapter 5 lets us know that people are human. And whether they are in the church or not (but in this case, they were in the church), they brought some of their carnality with them, and their carnality brought forth a very distressing event that has its parallel in the Old Testament. So everything was not sweetness and light and chapter 5 and the beginning of chapter 6 also shows that very clearly.
Another thing that it shows is, of course, the seriousness of sin, especially a sin that is committed directly, as Peter said, against God and His government—and it is not to be taken lightly. So, basically, the sin is this: That Ananias and Sapphira conspired to take credit for a greater sacrifice (I guess is the word that we might use), a greater personal sacrifice than they actually made. Now, when they were discovered, they denied that they had done this, and they are shockingly executed.
Acts 5:1-2 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Now, something that is behind the details, this is not something that is written in the Scripture, but because of the context, I think that we can safely assume that this is what they were after. At the tail end of chapter 4 is that very brief inset about Barnabas and the acclaim that he received because of the sacrifices that he made for the church. Now it seems evident to me that Ananias and Sapphira, seeing the acclaim that Barnabas received as a result of his sacrifice, that this motivated them to want the same kind of acclaim without having to make the same kind of sacrifice, but making it appear as though they were making the same kind of sacrifice as Barnabas had done. You see, there was where the deceit lay. And it says that they kept back part of the proceeds. It means that they put it aside for themselves.
What they did was this. They sold a piece of ground, a piece of property, let us say, I think it was a piece of real estate. Let us say they sold it for $1,000. Well, they told the apostles that they sold it for $500 and they kept $500. Now that was where their sin lay. They gave the impression that they were giving the whole amount that they had sold the land for. They were lying left and right and both of them knew it. And the indication is that they knew that they knew what they were doing was crooked. It was not just your ordinary mistake. Because they clearly gave the apostles the impression that they were giving the total amount.
"They laid it at the apostles' feet." It does not mean that they gave it for the apostles' personal use, but they laid it at the apostles' feet for them to direct how it was to be used in the work.
Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God."
This shows that what they did was voluntarily given. You know, the apostles were not going around tightening the screws on people, asking them to contribute. They probably let it be made known that there were needs within the community that could be taken care of if someone would contribute it, but it was completely voluntary. See, "While it remained, was it not your own? . . . Was it not in your own control?" They did not have their arms twisted to do this. So what they did was completely voluntarily done, and it becomes more and more evident that what they wanted was the acclaim for the sacrifice that it appeared as though they were making.
Now, it is interesting the way Luke—God—has chosen to show Peter. I do not know what kind of evidence Peter had to indicate that these people were conspiring, they were deceitfully arranging for something to look like it was not really. And yet Peter is shown as having a tremendous perceptive insight into what was going on. It was almost as if he could read their minds. Now, we understand that we just have the bare bones here of the story. But there is no indication that somebody else told on them and said, "Hey, Peter, they haven't told you the whole story."
Maybe that occurred, but the Bible does not indicate that at all. And so it shows Peter as not only a man who possessed a great deal of power to heal people, but also as a man who had another gift of God's Spirit, and that is a very penetrating insight into people's intents, and what was going on behind their eyes. I will tell you, it would be scary to be around someone like that. You would be afraid to have a bad thought. And you turn around and he would be going "Oh no," and we would just cringe.
I am getting more and more convinced the more I think about it, the more I study the Scripture, that this was really the reason why the scribes and the Pharisees killed Christ. They could not stand to be around somebody as righteous as He was. It just made them cringe. Every argument they put up, He could shoot it down. Everything that He did was pure and righteous beyond dispute. And probably even they could see that there was no deceit in anything that He did or said, that there was purity everywhere they looked, and they could not stand the comparison. And so, what do you do when you have somebody like that?
Have you read the book or any portions of the book, The Peter Principle? Anyway, the Peter Principle is that in business, we will say a corporation, people rise in the structure to the level of their incompetence. In other words, they keep going up the ladder until finally they reach a job that they are incompetent at, and there they stay. So they never rise any higher. And so they might get up to, let us say, sales manager, and they are incompetent at it, so everybody leaves them there. See, the vice presidents and those above them, they know that he cannot do anything higher, so they just leave them there. That is a general rule that is probably true.
Well, there are two kinds of people that this rule does not fit. One is those people who are totally incompetent and they are not going to go anywhere, right? And so, they stay on the bottom. Now, the other group of people that this does not fit are the super competents. Those who really have something on the ball. Now, do you know what happens to those people? They probably get fired. That is one thing that happens. You know why? Because those above them cannot stand having them around because they fear that they are going to take their job.
Now there is only one way for the super competent to get ahead. You know how he does it? He stays with the company until he is able to determine that he will never get any further in that company, and so he quits. And then he goes to another company and he rises a little bit further. And then he goes to another company and he rises a little further. And then another company and he rises a little bit, bit further. He stays just long enough until everybody begins to fear him. There are people like that, they are few and far between, but there are some like that.
But what if you cannot get rid of the guy? See, the only out is to kill him. And that is what happened with Christ.
Now how would you like to be even around Peter, who seem to have such powers that their shadow passing across people could provide cures. He could lay hands on people, pray for people, and they were healed. And now we find that he had such a penetrating insight into people, he could tell whether they were lying. That would be scary. And you could not get rid of them either because you are a Christian, see?
Ananias and Sapphira were just completely off course as far as how goals were to be accomplished that was diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the gospel. God's way of life, you see, is to be loving, to be kind, to be generous, to not be malicious, to not be deceitful, to not to lie, for your entire life to be an open book with not even a shadow of hypocrisy. How could God permit something like that to get root right at the very beginning of the church? Well, He could not. To allow it to go unchallenged might have set the whole church off course.
I mentioned to you just briefly before that there is a parallel to this in the Old Testament. It was with Achan. Remember Achan? We just looked at him very briefly last Sabbath. He did almost the same thing. And the circumstances in regard to Israel, chronologically, were almost similar. Just as Israel came into the land, Achan pulled his stunt. And you can see that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He showed right at the very beginning of Israel's history in the land that that kind of thing was not acceptable. Where Achan deceitfully stole things, hid them in his tent, and then tried to go around seemingly innocent of any kind of wrongdoing. Well, God met the challenge right away and revealed that Achan was the culprit. The tragedy of that situation is, I believe it was 35 or 36 men died as a result of Achan's sin. Because in Israel's next battle with Ai, they were chased and they lost 35 or 36 men, and now we have 35 or 36 widows, and who knows how many fatherless children as a result of Achan's sin.
Now see, here we have in the beginning of the New Testament church something that is a parallel, almost exactly. And God, the same yesterday, today, and forever, He reacted in exactly the same way. Now, you cannot read anything that Peter said here to Ananias that there was any kind of a death sentence in what he stated. It was God who executed.
When Sapphira came by, Peter already saw what God's decision was in the matter regarding Ananias. And so there is some tone of a death penalty in what Peter said to her.
Acts 5:4-5 "You have not lied to men but to God." Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things.
So, Luke shows here that God is the agent of death. And the fear here is a dread. Well, that would make you shape up in a hurry, something like that.
Acts 5:6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, and carried him out and buried him.
These are young men apparently who were just available there at the time, no particular office, but they just happened to be there.
Acts 5:7-9 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what happened. [So three hours, let us say, from the burial.] And Peter answered her [It does not seem as though there was any question.], "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?" She said, "Yes, for so much." [Did you sell it for $500? Yes, I sold it for $500. But the truth was, they sold it for $1,000.] Then Peter said to her [now we see a measure of the death penalty being read out read out here], "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."
Peter got right to the point, did he not? There was not any messing around there. You know, when you look at it, he did not even inform her of the loss of her husband. She apparently did not know that her husband was dead until Peter said what he said. So she persisted in the same story, so it indicates very clearly that she totally agreed with what Ananias had done.
Acts 5:10-11 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.
Israel tested God in the wilderness quite a number of times and that is what these people were guilty of. They tempted the Lord their God. They tested His mercy in doing this. Now we can be very thankful that God is not doing this kind of thing today. I am sure that He did what He did in order to establish a precedent so that there would be respect for Him and His government within the church. And that is there for our admonition. He wants us to understand that the same God who did that is capable of doing it to us. The chances are extremely great that He will not do it. But He did it then, and He wants us to have the right kind of respect toward Him and toward His government.
These next four verses actually introduce the rest of the chapter. And the rest of the chapter concerns itself with the apostles' second appearance before the Sanhedrin.
Acts 4:12-14 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people highly esteemed them. [Now you can see that the people feared them and yet we find. . .] And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.
The fear here indicates dread and yet, even though they dreaded them, they could not stop themselves from becoming a part of them. Sort of a paradox there. And well, what are you going to do with that? It is recorded there that that is what occurred. I do not think that the church of God today puts a dread in the people. Maybe someday we will. I am absolutely certain that the Two Witnesses are going to put a dread in people. Those two men are going to be feared. People are going to be afraid of them, that they are going to be killed too.
Acts 5:15-16 So that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.
It was a result of the healings, undoubtedly, that people overcame their dread. There were a lot of sick people then, just as there are sick people today. So God used the healing, both as a means of mercy and also as a means of advertising.
Now there is a reason why Luke included this right when he did. He is using that, not only to bridge between the episode with Ananias and Sapphira, but he is also using it to bridge into the story regarding the apostles and their second confrontation with the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin could not afford to ignore the church because it was becoming increasingly effective and persuasive with the people and so the challenge was there, and so the Sanhedrin was motivated to act. They either had to do it or just roll over and play dead and let the church, in a sense, take over the hearts of the people. Well, they did not see that last option as one that they could live with.
Acts 5:17-20 Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation [you can see the source of the irritation was at the success of the church], and they laid hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, "Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life."
Here we have an escape through the intervention of an angel. Now, the angel not only set them free, but the angel also gave them a command. Now, if we were going to write verse 20 in more modern English, what the angel said to Peter is, "Stand your ground. Don't back down." He did not just tell them, go, stand and preach. He said, "Buck up your back. And don't back down in the face of the opposition." He was actually telling them in a sense to go on the offensive. Do not budge one inch with what you know about God and His purpose.
Acts 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered the temple early in the morning and taught. But the high priest and those with him came and called the council together, with all the elders of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
At the time that verse 21 shows in this episode, the high priest and his crowd was not aware that Peter and the others were out of prison. They thought they were still in prison. And so here Peter and the others were preaching at the temple, and the Sanhedrin was meeting in order to lay this charge against them, still thinking that they were in prison. Now they did not have telephones in those days. Well, even if they had had telephones, apparently the jailers were still not yet aware that they were gone. Now finally,
Acts 5:22 But when the officers came and did not find them in the prison, they returned and reported, . . .
Do you see what happened here? The officers that he is talking about are those who were sent by the Sadducees from the Sanhedrin to the prison. So that conclusively shows that the people in prison, the guards, still did not know that they were gone.
Acts 5:23-26 . . . saying, "Indeed we found the prison shut securely, and the guards standing outside before the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside!" [Boy, they were really hoodwinked.] Now when the high priest, and the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these things, they wondered what the outcome would be. [They were just totally perplexed about what was going on.] And then one came and told them, saying, "Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!" And then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned.
Now you can see the way things are going here, the series of circumstances that have taken place, the Sanhedrin is almost totally buffaloed. They know that they have to act but they make sure that whenever they make the arrest, that it is as peaceable as it can possibly be, because they feared that the apostles had such influence with the people that if they stirred them up in any way, they were going to attack the Sanhedrin.
The apostles had learned a thing or two from Christ as well, because they had never seen Jesus resist arrest. They had never seen Him resist the authorities. There were times in His ministry when, probably at a word, if He had done something He had such influence with the people that He could have turned a mob of people in a riot against those who were trying to take Him. But they had learned that that is not the way to do things. And so they submitted, then, to a peaceable arrest. It is very likely that, at their word, they could have stirred up the crowd against the officers and their group, and there would have been a full scale riot taking place, right in the temple grounds. But they did not do that.
Verse 28; now they are in front of the high priest. It is interesting that it does not say which high priest. Was it Caiaphas or was it Ananias? Ananias was not really the high priest, but everybody recognized that he was the power behind the throne. Well, it does not say who was actually doing the questioning, whether it was Caiaphas or whether it was Ananias. I guess it really does not matter because they both represented the same thing. So it says then,
Acts 5:28 "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?"
Now I want you to watch. They will not say the name of Jesus. They studiously avoid it. It is almost as though if they said that name, they would somehow be contaminated. What they are reminding them here is this: That they are in contempt of court, that is, the apostles are in contempt of court. That the apostles had broken the prohibition against preaching. Notice the next phrase.
Acts 5:28-29 We [have] command[ed] you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's [again, they avoid saying Jesus] blood on us!" But Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."
So they were recognizing that, in effect, the apostles, by their preaching were calling for divine retribution upon them for what they were obviously guilty of. We know, of course, that God did not act on that, but it could very easily be interpreted that way.
Now what we have in verse 29 is a plainer and a more direct affirmation of what they had previously said in Acts 4:19, where it says, "But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge." Now, just in case they did not understand that, God through Peter made it very clear that the apostles were going to stand their ground and they were going to obey God regardless of what contempt of court there was against them. So the commandments of God, or the keeping of the commandments of God, take precedence over human commandments, regardless of how high that human commandment is.
Does this apply to you and me? Well it does apply to you and me. It is part of the price that we have to bear for being a Christian. We have to be willing to bear the cost of obeying God rather than men.
Acts 5:30-32 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered [Now, that is plain. That is really blunt.] by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. [He is making it very clear that Jesus is now a leader and Savior through whom people have the opportunity of repentance and forgiveness.] And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him."
That is very clear that Peter understood the apostles' responsibility.
Acts 5:33-34 When they heard this [that is, the council], they were furious and took counsel to kill them. Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while.
Gamaliel has quite a reputation among the Jews. Gamaliel was a Pharisee and the fact that he was a moderating influence here is really somewhat surprising. Because all through the Gospel—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—it seems as though they are the ones who were the primary recipients of Christ's anger and scorn and contempt. And they seem to be His greatest protagonists [antagonists?]. The Sadducees were there, and they received some tongue lashings from Christ. They were always kind of in the background until finally it came a time for Christ's crucifixion, and then they were in the forefront and the Pharisees were slipping into the background. I think I mentioned to you that there is no record of the Pharisees participating in or condoning or encouraging the crucifixion of Christ. By that time, the Sadducees had picked up the ball.
Now we find apparently there was a hangover from that. And in the early days of the church the Pharisees apparently felt a closer kinship with the Christian church than the Sadducees did by far. And so we see an example of this where Gamaliel, a Pharisee, is the moderating influence, because otherwise, apparently, if he had not intervened they might have been killed right then and there, or at least delivered over to the Romans in order to be killed. So we find this man actually taking up for the church, and he stood his ground. And said, "No, men and brethren, you shouldn't do this." And then he states his reasons why.
Acts 5:35-40 He said to them: "Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God." And they agreed with him.
That was pretty sound advice. It turned out to be partly wrong but God undoubtedly used the man in order to save the lives of the apostles at that time. I wrote myself a note here to say a little bit about the Pharisees here.
The Pharisees arose apparently from a group of men called the Hasidim. Hasidim means "the pious ones," and they had their beginning sometime around, roughly, about 400 years before Christ. They arose during the reign of the Seleucids, toward the end of the reign of the Seleucids over Syria and Palestine. And whenever the Maccabees arose, the Pharisees (the Hasidim) joined forces with them and lent to them any strength that they could possibly give to them in order to break through from the tyranny of the Seleucids. Well, the Maccabees, as you understand, were successful, and they did manage to break the yoke of the Seleucids.
But then the Pharisees, who were beginning to be called Pharisees by this time, had a fallout with the Maccabees, because they felt that the Maccabees were turning away from their original intent, which was not political at all, but primarily spiritual, in order that the Jews would be free to worship God in the way that they saw fit. But instead, the Maccabees began to have political aspirations, and the Pharisees would not cotton into that at all, and slowly but surely they began to break away from them.
Well, through the years, the Pharisees gained a pretty strong influence among the people because they were generally, at least currently, pretty good people. They gave themselves over to study of the law, the Torah. They gave themselves over to acts of righteousness. They did not come from any particular socioeconomic background. They were simply men who decided to dedicate themselves to study of the law and to righteousness. And so they had no particular ax to grind politically, but people looked to them for influence in spiritual areas, and they gained so much influence in spiritual areas that the Sadducees, who held all the political and economic power in the country, actually had to, in a sense, almost knuckle under to them in order to govern the country. Because if they did not have the influence of the Pharisees, the people would have been pretty much unmanageable. So they did, actually, a great deal of good within the nation in providing a stability that otherwise would not have been there.
Now they were never very large in number. According to the people who study into these things, they probably at no time numbered any more than about 6,000 men. They had influence far out of proportion to their numbers. They were vastly outnumbered by the general population and by the Sadducees as well. Now, they had a very great deal in common with the Christian church. They believed in the resurrection from the dead. They believed in angels, they believed in demons, they believed in free moral agency. They tried to live very simple lives apart from any needless wealth and luxury.
Josephus, who writes his opinions regarding some of these groups. has very much favorable to say about the Pharisees and almost nothing good to say about the Sadducees. Apparently, Josephus was neither a Sadducee or a Pharisee. But he basically says about the Sadducees that they could not get along with each other. Each man was out to get what he could get, and if he had to put down a fellow Sadducee in order to do it, well, he was fair game. But he said that the Pharisees generally promoted stability and security within the neighborhoods in which they lived.
Now Gamaliel was especially highly esteemed. He was a grandson of Hillel, who was probably the greatest of the Jewish doctors of the law, at least in his generation, and maybe for many, many generations after that as well, so that it is written in the Mishna, which is a commentary on the law, "That since Gamaliel the elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and abstinence died out at the same time." So he represented restraint and a great deal of understanding because the advice that he gave was right on. If these men are of God, there is no way you are going to stop it. If they are not of God, they are going to die out, just like these other revolutions did. So there was wisdom in what he said. So, his basic plea was that past experience, past history, shows that this kind of uprising will die out very soon, as soon as the leader is put to death or something happens to him. So there is no need to take any action against the apostles.
I might add this, that in effect what he was saying is let the Romans take care of them. If there is any kind of disturbance, the Romans are going to act. One other thing I might just add here. That undoubtedly Gamliel's advice, his counsel, was given based on his idea that Christianity was only another sect within Judaism. Now, he could very easily be misled this way, because the Christian church doctrinally had so much in common with the Pharisees. And he could look at their doctrines, and he could say, well, the only thing that really appears to be different is this thing they have about this Jesus of Nazareth. But everything else seems to be basically the same. And so he could feel kind of a kinship with the church and feel that they were only another sect within Judaism.
But you see, subsequent events which Luke is going to cover prove Gamliel's assumption to be wrong. And undoubtedly, if Gamaliel had known what we begin to see in chapters 6 and 7, I think that Gamliel's counsel would have been put them to death. But for the moment anyway, based on the evidence at hand, the counsel was good. So, what he did is he spoke tolerance for them. But as the Christian message began to become clearer and clearer, and perhaps the apostles were being led into truth as well—maybe they knew some of it, maybe they kind of avoided some of the distinctions between Christianity and Judaism, at least at the beginning. I do not know. But we will begin to see in the preaching of Stephen that there was a vast world of difference between Christianity and Pharisees. But they did not see that then. And so the counsel was good up to that point.
Acts 5:40-42 And they agreed with him, and when they had called for the apostles and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And so they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. And daily in the temple and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
It is felt by the commentaries that it is very likely that these men received the 39 stripes or the 40 minus 1, and that was no easy punishment. People died from that. The shock of being struck that many times was just too much for some people's constitutions to take. But the punishment did not deter them. And they were rejoicing in their sufferings and the showing what should be a hallmark for all Christians.
Chapter 6 introduces a new section within the first section and goes through the whole chapter. What it does is it bridges from the earliest beginnings of the church, whose focus was almost entirely on Jerusalem and the Jews who were there. It begins to bridge over to the fact that there were Hellenists within the church. And then over on to the martyrdom of Stephen in chapter 7, the expansion of the preaching away from Jerusalem for the first time by the apostles and into Samaria, then the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and then the conversion of Cornelius. This chapter provides the bridge into that.
Now, it has to be done because of what follows later in the book of Acts. Stephen is very important to Christianity because what he did focused on the differences between Christianity and Judaism. And it showed very clearly that Christianity was not another sect of Judaism at all, but it was something entirely new arising in the earth. And we might wonder about the wisdom of Stephen speaking on what he did, as bluntly and plainly as he did. It is questionable as to whether he should have done what he did. (We will go into that a little bit more.) It cost him his life—and maybe it did not need to cost him his life. But it did prove to be a springboard for the preaching to go into other areas, and to make very clear to the Jews at that time that they were probably in a life and death struggle with something that only one, in a sense, could really survive. And so the Christians were in a sense, in order not to focus so much persecution on themselves, they began to move out and to go into other areas. So God actually used that to provide a prod for the apostles to move out of the area and start beginning to make the ripples go out over the entirety of the earth.
Acts 6:1 Now in those days when the number of disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
We have two words here that are interesting to look at. First of all, we are going to look at the Grecians or the Hellenists. Now these were Jews but they were primarily Greek speaking. And the reason that they were primarily Greek speaking is probably because these were Jews who had been dispersed. They were part of the Diaspora. They were Jews who had come back to Jerusalem, from Rome, from Greece, from Turkey, from Mesopotamia. You know, some of those individuals that might have been part of that group that was in Acts 2, see, where those 12 or 13 nations are mentioned there. For whatever the reason was, they had returned to Jerusalem.
Now, it is very likely that one of the major reasons why they returned to Jerusalem is that they wanted to be buried there. That has a bearing on this chapter. Because the focus of what happens here in the first couple of verses is on the widows. These were widows of Hellenist Jews who had returned to the area and then died, and they left their wife a widow. The widow was primarily Greek speaking.
Then the Hebrews, these were also Jews but their main language was Arabic which was a Semitic language. But they were, in all probability, native born. Now, on the surface it appears that all we have are two groups of Jews, each one speaks a different language. But it does not end there.
First of all, what do different languages do to people? They divide. That is what God did with Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. He confused their tongues, and the languages divided them. Now, not only were they different in language, very likely they were different in every orientation in their life. The only thing that the Hellenists and the Hebrews had in common is that they were both Jews. A Jew reared in Rome, or a Jew reared in Athens, or a Jew reared in Corinth, or a Jew reared in Ephesus, was not only going to have a different language, that is, his primary language was going to be the one that he grew up with, but also he was going to have a different orientation toward life almost entirely. You see, we have two groups of Jews who are butting heads here within the church. One who has a Hellenistic orientation to life, and the other that has a Hebrew orientation to life.
Now, it is very likely that the Hellenists were by orientation much more tolerant, willing to accept others, had a much less tendency to be prejudiced toward other languages, other races, other ethnic groups. You know the reputation of the Jews around Jerusalem. Their lot seems to be a very prejudiced group of people who looked down on everybody else who was not a Jew. And indeed also we find, looked down even on Jews whose language was different from theirs. See, is that not what it says? There was murmuring against the Hebrews by the Hellenists because their widows were neglected. And it was true. The Aramaic speaking Jews within the church were prejudiced against the Greek speaking Jews within the church.
So we are beginning to see that there were problems in the church besides Ananias and Sapphira. So, what Luke is giving here is a bare bones insight into the resolution of a problem that the church had to deal with right at the beginning.
Acts 6:2-4 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
Back in verse 2, just as a little aside, the title "the twelve" is used. It is the very first time that appears in the book. It is probably used in contrast to the seven who are just about ready to be appointed.
It is interesting that the criticism was leveled at the Twelve because they were in charge and the buck stopped somewhere. There was nobody else who could take the buck and so it had to stop at them. The criticism was leveled at them. Now I think that it is to their credit that they just did not ignore it. What they did was this. You can see that there is some humility and some wisdom here. They recognized that the combined responsibility of taking care of the administrative responsibilities of the work and the giving themselves over to prayer and to the preaching and whatever, that neither one of them would be served very well. It is part of the principle that no man can serve two masters. Something is going to be neglected, either one or the other.
Now you can see in the context here what was being neglected. The widows were being neglected. They recognized then that this also was part of the ministry or the responsibility of the church. That there was a social responsibility, that the church was not just a teaching institution for the proclaiming of the gospel, but the church also had a responsibility to take care of those who were weak among them and the widow certainly fit in that category.
Something I think here that is interesting to note. That nowhere did the apostles say that the serving of tables was at a lower level, or of a lower level than prayer or preaching. It is just simply a different responsibility. What it is saying is that an elder is called for prayer and preaching, and that he better pay attention to that. Another thing is that there is no assigning of blame. They did not point the finger at anybody. But rather, there is a recognition on the apostles' part that the physical and the spiritual, the physical caring of those who are weak among us and the spiritual are so interrelated that one is always going to affect the other, for better or for worse. They cannot be separated. So if you think that the physical does not have any impact on the spiritual, you have got another thought coming to you. Because it is in the realm of the physical that we can learn and overcome and build a great deal of spiritual character. They impact on each other. They affect each other for good or for bad and both have to be taken care of.
Now the command to select was probably directed solely at the Hellenist element within the church. It is interesting, to me it is anyway, that they told in their directions, in their command that they were to look primarily for men of spiritual quality. Because, you see, that would favorably impact on their physical abilities in the administrative areas. Again, you see a recognition that the spiritual is going to affect the physical and vice versa.
Acts 6:5-6 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. So they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.
Again we see here the process of putting somebody in office. There is, first of all, a recognition by the group that somebody is always already carrying out the responsibility. I do not know whether you realize it or not, but the church still really follows this same procedure. Now the group selected the men but the apostles approved it. It was not an election in the sense that they voted. There is no indication of that. But it probably was some sort of saying, "Yeah, this is a good man, and this is a good man, and this is a good man. Do you approve?" There was probably that kind of approach to things. But the apostles, if they knew these people well enough, they could have declined. Like "These ones are OK, but this one is not," or whatever. And so the apostles were still in control and they gave their approval by the laying on of hands.
So then, in the laying on of hands they were set apart, and thus they distinguished them from others who were also part of the Hellenist group. So there was a setting apart, making them different from the others, and in the laying on of hands was also conferred the power to solve the problem. So they had the authority.
I think in a way that is a very beautiful illustration of the way the church ought to deal with people. It does not say that the church solved the problem for the people. In other words, there is an avoidance of what we would call today paternalism. But rather they gave some men the power to act. And it is very likely then that they helped these ladies to meet their situation, but they did not do it all for them. You do not learn and grow when somebody is always doing something for you. You have to do it yourself.
Now the apostles, if they wanted to carry paternalism to an extreme, could have just stepped in and solved the problem themselves, but they did not do that. They came up with the solution but then they left the working out of it, the logistics, up to others, and then everybody grows in that kind of situation.
Then, again, Luke goes back to his habit of showing what was the result. The Word of God spread. That is God's way of saying that these people reached the right decision, that their conclusion was right. And so the result was,
Acts 5:7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
That is kind of a twist, is it not? Here is the Sanhedrin lining themselves up against the church. And the Sanhedrin drew most of its members from the priestly class, and they were mostly Sadducees. But here we find the priests, who were not of that element apparently, who were coming to the church in reasonably large numbers.
This might interest you, just as an aside. Do you know how many priests and Levites were employed at the Temple? The figure is, to me, staggering. When you figure, try to visualize how large the Temple was. Not a great deal larger than Ambassador Auditorium. There were 18,000 men employed at the Temple carrying on the responsibilities of ministering to the people there. Eighteen thousand in the first century. Well, that is a lot of people.
Now they were not all there at one time. Undoubtedly, they carried their responsibilities into other parts of the land. But there were apparently 18,000 men directly employed, working out of the Temple. It was a big operation. That is nothing to sneeze at. You would think there would be so many there, they would be tripping over one another.
So there were plenty of people there to be converted and apparently some of them were being converted and coming into the church.
We will stop right there and then we will save the whole story of Stephen for the next time.
JWR/aws/drm
Sermon Topics
The Gospel
