Sermon Tone Analysis

Acts 6:1-7

A Growing Church

 

/In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.

Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.

We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”/

/This proposal pleased the whole group.

They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them/.

/So the word of God spread.

The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith/.

| C |

ompared to the churches described in the pages of the New Testament the average church of this day is desperately sick.

Entertainment masquerades as worship.

Pastors are reduced to a role resembling glorified cheerleaders and deacons are elevated to positions of power utterly foreign to the revelation of the New Testament.

The people in the average church demand entertainment and are prepared to enforce their demands through moving to whichever church is willing to pander to their foolish demands.

Were the situation not so pitiable, it would be humorous.

What characterises a Growing church?

What marks should be seen in a church functioning as the Lord intended?

What features does a New Testament church exhibit?

The questions are one.

Should I refer to any of the New Testament lists which list the graces of the Spirit we would have some understanding of the features sought, but we would be no closer to achieving the heights expected of the churches of our Lord.

A Growing Church Will Experience Conflict.

Conflict is a characteristic of our fallen world and the churches of our Lord are not protected from conflict.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that the first church experienced conflict early in its history.

The growing congregation experienced a cultural clash which threatened its continued existence if not quickly addressed.

The Grecian Jews complained that their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.

Unlike this present day, the churches in that ancient day assumed responsibility to care for the poor among them.

The saints were actively involved in caring for their own people, providing what was necessary for those incapable of providing for themselves.

/In those days when the number of disciples was increasing…/  The chapters preceding our text describe the honeymoon days of the church.

How exciting those days of prayer and fellowship must have been when by the Spirit’s power /more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number/ [*Acts 5:14*] and when the number of disciples was increasing [*Acts 6:1*].

The growing church was fused into a loving fellowship and [a]ll the believers were one in heart and mind.

No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [*Acts 4:32*].

Wouldn’t we like to have the problem arising from the Lord add[ing] to [our] number daily those who were being saved [*Acts 2:47*]?

We may rightfully assume that among the worshipers were representatives of Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs [*Acts 2:9-11*].

These particular linguistic~/cultural groups are specifically stated to have been represented among those present on the Day of Pentecost.

Representatives from each of these linguistic~/cultural groups are likely to have therefore been included among the membership of the first church.

Though the Apostles and elders could not know individually every member, they appear to have been alert to attitudes displayed among the members.

They recognised discontent when it appeared.

The multicultural milieu, while appealing to a segment of modern thought, insures that contentment is difficult to maintain.

By the time chapter six opens growth had continued to the point that Grecian Jews comprised a significant proportion within the church.

In this chapter we read of Nicolas from Antioch [*verse five*] a convert to Judaism who was already recognised for his wisdom [*verse three*].

We may imagine that a number of these members drawn from those who were associated with the Diaspora were widows.

John Polhill, in an excellent commentary, writes that Diaspora Jews often moved to Jerusalem in their twilight years to die in the Holy City[1].

The widows of Diaspora Jews who died would likely have no relatives in Palestine to look after them; they would be completely dependent on charity for their very survival.

Many of these widows had no doubt been attracted to the Faith in the first place because of concern exhibited by the church for the material needs of its members.

The social concern validated the message of life in Jesus the Messiah.

Judaism provided an elaborate system of public welfare for the poor, but Jewish persecution of Followers of the Way had no doubt cut off this source of support.

The Christian concern that there be no needy among them has already been referred to in Acts [*Acts **2:44 ff.; 4:32,34 ff.*].

The administration of this charity appears to have initially been in the hands of the Apostles.

Perhaps in response to this pressure arising from Jewish persecution, or perhaps simply as spontaneous expression of love which characterises believers in the Risen Son of God, the church had set up a voluntary community of goods.

All the believers were one in heart and mind.

No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [*Acts 4:32*].

The pattern for distribution of charity was found first in the Jewish community.

The Jews had a weekly dole for resident need called the quppah.

It was given out every Friday and consisted of enough money for fourteen meals.

There was also a daily distribution, known as the tamhuy.

It was for non-residents and transients and consisted of food and drink delivered house-to-house where those known to be needy were staying.

The Christian practise seems to have embraced elements of both Jewish systems.

Like the tamhuy it was daily, and like the quppah it was for the resident members.

Yet the administration of this spontaneous approach was not equal to the growing complexity of needs within the fellowship.

The problem was not so much insufficient resources as it was that one group of widows */felt neglected/*.

Everyone involved had the best of intentions, yet the rancour of simmering criticism emerged to threaten the nascent Faith.

The lines were drawn and culture was pitted against culture.

The church is an amazing paradox.

On the one hand, it reaches out to all people in total and unqualified acceptance.

Every human difference on the face of the earth is welcomed within its fellowship.

Greeks and Jews alike retain all of their cultural diversity, even after each has repented, believed, been baptised, and been filled with the Holy Spirit.

Yet this pluralistic church is to be united as no other group on the face of the earth.

Each member is to experience a oneness of loving fellowship, an intimacy of sharing, that transcends every human difference.

Thus, no church that reaches out to all people can escape the dilemma of the text: namely, the more a congregation grows, and so deepens its diversity, the greater the likelihood that newcomers will grumble because they */feel neglected/* by those with backgrounds different from their own.

[T]he Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

What sort of spontaneous combustion sparked the controversy igniting fires of discontent?

In the identification that two cultural groups were found within that first church—Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews—lies a clue.

Grecian Jews spoke Greek and were Greek in culture and life-style, whereas the Hebraic Jews were Semitic in language, culture and life-style.

Though both groups were Jews by birth and Christians by rebirth, these shared experiences were not sufficient to overcome the profound tensions festering between Jewish and Greek culture in that day.

The source of discontent, the excuse for grumbling, if you will, appears to have been less a case of overt hostility than one of benign neglect.

Grecian Jews considered themselves to be the outsiders; Hebrew Jews were seen as the insiders.

Grecian Jews were the newcomers; Hebrews the old guard.

Each spoke differently, employed different terms for the same concepts, each dressed differently, acted differently, had differing expectations; and so each became increasingly clannish.

The Hebrews seemed to have all the power, the Twelve came from within their camp; therefore it was easy to suppose that their widows received preferential treatment in the daily dole.

Nevertheless, nobody wanted to appear to openly attack the Lord’s Apostles, the preachers for the congregation, so dissent was driven underground and assumed the form of suppressed indignation rather than erupting openly as defiant criticism.

In fact, there was no hard evidence for favouritism, only a lurking suspicion of slight that was all the more dangerous because it was inarticulate and so could not be dealt with decisively.

The growing discontent could have resulted from any of a thousand causes.

That it grew out of cultural differences within the congregation is apparent.

The cause of the discontent is less important for our discussion than the response.

In order to study that response I invite you to consider the composition of the church, adopting in your mind this church as a model for the Growing church.

Perhaps this is the type of church which is needed here.

At the least it is the type of church which must be studied to insure that an appropriate response is mounted to any challenge within the congregation.

A Growing Church Will Exhibit Godly Leadership.

*Everything rises or falls on leadership*, states an old saw.

This is simply a restatement of the biblical position, which though often ignored is nevertheless clearly and plainly articulated in the Proverbs.

!

It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury—

/how much worse for a slave to rule over princes/

[*Proverbs 19:10*]!

Solomon, in Ecclesiastes, states the same principle in other language when he says:

 

/There is an evil I have seen under the sun,/

/the sort of error that arises from a ruler:/

/Fools are put in many high positions,/

/while the rich occupy the low ones./