This passage presents us with some surprises. The first is that in these very early days of the church in Jerusalem we find complaining; it’s there in the very first verse. But this was a time when God was powerfully blessing the preaching and teaching of the apostles, a time when the Holy Spirit was working through the gospel bringing large numbers – much larger than anything we have experienced – to faith in Jesus Christ. On the day of Pentecost 3,000 had been added to the 120 who had gathered for prayer in Jerusalem. In chapter 4:4 we read: But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about 5,000. Then in chapter 5:14 we are told: And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. And here the opening words are: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number. It is surely surprising, almost a shock, to find complaining in the middle of such growth and such an evident work of the Holy Spirit.
And more than that. In the beginning of chapter 5 we have the tragic story of Ananias and Sapphira. The result of that sad episode was this: great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. You might have thought that that fear would still linger on and people would fear to complain. Then, in the second half of chapter 5 we are told of the arrest of the apostles, and the desire on the part of many of the members of the council to put them to death. Humanly speaking, it seems that it was only through the intervention of Gamaliel that this did not take place. So you might also have thought that this increasing opposition would have brought the believers together and would have silenced all complaints in view of the need to stand against the threat and danger that faced them all.
There are other surprises that I could point to, but the one which is most important for our purpose this morning is this. Doesn’t it seem surprising that this complaint, this problem, was dealt with so harmoniously and quickly? An apostles’ meeting, a church meeting, and by the end of that the whole thing was settled! Perhaps it wasn’t quite as quick as it might appear because no time scale is given, but the problem was certainly sorted out with efficiency to everyone’s satisfaction. And here is where we see the condition of the church and the working of the Holy Spirit in it at that time. Problems and difficulties will always arise; they will arise in times of revival, in times of growth; they will arise unexpectedly. The presence of problems, even complaints, says nothing about the spiritual condition of the churches in which they occur. But how they are handled, and whether they are dealt with wisdom, spirituality and efficiency and brought to a successful outcome, says a great deal.
In turning to this passage I have six headings; so you will be able to keep track of our progress through the passage.
1 The occasion
The occasion is described in the opening verse: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number. A problem arose because the church was growing, numbers were increasing, and also because there were two different groups of people within the church, Hebrew speaking Jews (or to be more accurate, Aramaic speaking Jews) and Greek speaking Jews. Both these factors led to the problem and the complaining. Taking the second of them first, we can note that British society is now more diverse than it has been for centuries, perhaps than it has ever been, and this is bound to affect churches. Then, if a problem can arise when a church grows, it can also happen when a church shrinks in size. It can happen when circumstances alter, or when the membership alters. Alteration may simply come about through the passing of time, the same people may be there, but now they are all older, and not able to do what they used to do. Or it may be that the numbers are much the same, but older, more mature Christians have passed away, some, perhaps, have moved away, and there are now many new believers who need teaching and establishing in the faith. As we all know, problems of many different sorts are inevitable in church life.
I am not one who favours change when there seems no need for it. I think there should be a definite sense of stability and continuity in church life. There does need, of course, to be a constant measuring of a church’s life against the Scriptures and this may well lead to changes which enable the church to reflect more adequately Scriptural priorities and principles. But new problems and complaints have to be responded to as well. And churches are confronted with plenty of these nowadays. If possible it is obviously better to anticipate them beforehand, or at least to spot them early on before any complaining begins. With hindsight we might feel that the apostles could perhaps have realised that the daily distribution of provisions for the widows was getting too much for them to handle adequately by themselves. Just as, with hindsight, we can see that many difficulties which arise in churches were gradually developing over a fairly long period. There is a difficult balance here. On the one hand we don’t want to be problem-orientated, always looking to see what problems are lurking round the corner, or to react to trends which may never develop into problems at all. On the other hand, if real problems can be nipped in the bud it is much better for everyone.
The point I want to make here is just this. As time goes by and as churches grow or shrink, as circumstances or personnel change, so new opportunities, needs and problems arise. We need to be ready for them.
2 The problem
The problem concerned the ministry of care within the church at Jerusalem. Such a ministry is always necessary, though the type of care may change with different circumstances. In those days it was care for the widows, and that care was primarily a material one, it was the livelihood of the widows that was threatened because they had no husbands to provide for them. Throughout the Bible we find that God has a care for vulnerable people, the widow and orphan are often mentioned, as is the stranger. The foreigner who came to live within the borders of Israel was naturally at a disadvantage and could very easily be despised and neglected simply because of his origin. Times have changed and by and large people’s material needs are met in our own country, so that there is not the same need for such provision – though we must not overlook the needs of brothers and sisters in many other parts of the world.
One of our problems is often that of isolation and loneliness, whether we are thinking of widows, widowers or older couples, all of whom are generally living longer these days. Families no longer live in close proximity to each other. The state provides for people to come in to help with cleaning and meals and medical needs. But the elderly often spend long periods without seeing other people. Many of them are unable to get out to public worship or to enjoy fellowship with other believers. Unless someone comes to see them, they remain alone feeling cut off and sometimes spiritually dry, in need of encouragement and ministry of the word and prayer. Not for a moment am I suggesting that the ministry of care is restricted to older people, I am just using this as an example, bearing in mind that it was widows in our passage.
Underlying the complaint was a relational problem. As we’ve seen this arose because of two slightly different groups in the church. They were all Jews – or at least very largely Jews – but some spoke Aramaic while the others were Greek speakers, which suggests they were probably influenced by Greek culture in other ways as well, and may have come from other parts of the Mediterranean to live in Jerusalem. As you can see it wasn’t just the widows that complained, it was the friends and relatives of the widows. Perhaps there was a general tension between these two groups in society, and sadly an opportunity was given for this to surface within the church.
Relationships are always important in church life. Many problems have a relational element to them. Sometimes a personality clash is the root cause of a problem, very often a real problem is made worse by underlying relational tensions, as seems to be so here. If I can introduce a note that is not found explicitly in the passage, it seems to me that the devil loves to spoil fellowship within churches by working on already existing tensions and pressure points. We need to watch out for him.
But there was a further element here that we need to notice. What is the precise role of the apostles, and, bringing things up to date, what is the precise role of pastors and elders? You can see that up until this point the apostles had obviously been responsible for providing for the widows. Was it right for them to continue this work; to devote more time to it; to enlarge the apostolate to take account of an increased workload? Certainly not; and this is one of the dilemmas that often exercises pastors within churches. How far should they be jack-of-all-trades, or should they be much more focused in their ministries? So, as is frequently the case, this problem had a number of facets to it, and it was important to solve it as soon as possible in such a way that proper care was exercised, relations put right, and the apostles enabled to get on with their own calling.
3 The remedy
First of all the apostles must have consulted with each other. Whether or not they were accustomed to get together for prayer and discussion about how things were going in the church, they certainly came together on this occasion. In doing so, they obviously took the complaining seriously. There is no suggestion that they took the compliant personally, as they could have done, and as others might have done in their place. You know what one or more of them could have said, ‘Why are we being criticised like this and accused of neglect? Can’t these people see how busy we are, and that we’ve been doing our best. If it wasn’t for us those widows wouldn’t have anything at all and yet all we get are complaints!’ There is no hint of anything like that; they examined the situation carefully and recognised there was a real problem that needed to be dealt with. There is a lesson for all of us in this.
They realised, too, that this situation must not be allowed to continue; it was unsatisfactory for the widows concerned and it was a source of dissension in the church. It needed to be dealt with immediately and decisively. They had met to decide a course of action and deal with the matter. There are, of course, a great variety of church matters that leaders have to consider, of varying priority and importance. Nevertheless, I fear that many leaders meetings end up being long on discussion and short on decision. I remember seeing in a Christian bookshop a poster, I think it was illustrated with animals but that doesn’t matter. It was the words that were telling: ‘When all is said and done, they’ll be much more said than done.’ I also remember one minister saying to me, about deacons’ meetings, I think, ‘We meet to decide’. It is a good motto to adopt.
The apostles also realised that if the widows were going to be cared for adequately, and if they were going to fulfil their ministry of prayer and preaching the word properly, others would have to be called in to do what they had been doing. I wonder if any of them felt they really ought to carry on doing the work themselves. Did any of them think, ‘I don’t want to give up this job, I just think we all ought to work harder’? Did anyone say to himself, ‘People will think we’re lazy, and just want to stay at home when we’re not actually preaching’? Did someone say, ‘Can we be sure anyone else will do this work properly and fairly, at least we know what we’re doing’? I don’t know, but if such thoughts passed through any apostolic mind, they all soon came to see that they were mistaken thoughts, and I would say they were actually unworthy thoughts.
But if others needed to be given this work to do, certain other things had to be decided. What sort of people would be fit for the task, how many who would be needed, and who would appoint them? All these questions could have provoked considerable discussion and disagreement among the apostles, but they seemed to have reached unanimity without any difficulty. The task of choosing the men for the job was delegated to the church; the church was to be trusted to do this, and then the apostles would pray and set them apart to their work with the laying on of hands. They decided that it needed seven men for this work. The church was very large, there were many widows and it was a formidable task to ensure they were all provided for. Incidentally, if seven men were needed it shows how inadequate it had been for the twelve apostles to try and do it all themselves. I wonder if any of the apostles thought seven was too many, or not enough? You could spend hours debating a thing like that, if you were minded to do so, couldn’t you? Anyway, they agreed on the figure seven. I can’t believe that as they left their meeting Peter would have turned to Andrew and said, ‘I still believe eight would be better’.
And so the apostles called the church together. It must have been a huge gathering, the full number of the disciples. Briefly they outlined the position to the church: It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. This commended itself to all who were there: And what they said pleased the whole gathering. Obviously this can’t be guaranteed every time. I think there were probably two elements to this. On the one hand what the apostles were proposing was so clearly wise and just what was needed that everyone concurred with it. On the other, I believe the members of the church came together with a desire to settle the matter, with great respect for the apostles derived from their ministry and what was known of their character, with good will and concern for the welfare of the whole church. As a result there was no need to discuss what the apostles proposed, but simply to get on and choose the seven men. Which was what they did.
We could imagine a different outcome. I suppose there are some here who have been present in leaders’ meetings – whether elders’ or deacons’ – and have discussed an issue at length and then brought a proposal to a church meeting only to find that the same long discussion takes place all over again and all the same considerations are rehearsed in detail once more. Suppose that had happened here; suppose one of the apostles had got up and said, ‘I think we ought to appoint eight men rather than seven. I said so in the apostles’ meeting, only to be over-ruled, but now I think we have an opportunity to re-consider the whole matter’. The result could easily have been prolonged discussion over a detail. After all if you appoint seven and that proves to be an inadequate number you can always add another later on. In our day such a discussion often comes to a conclusion with someone saying, ‘I think we ought to give ourselves more time to pray about this; let’s adjourn it, get on with the agenda and come back to it at the next church meeting.’ Which may be 3 months away.
Now it is undoubtedly important to discuss issues thoroughly; and it is important for people to feel free to speak, to ask questions and raise any concerns that they have. But decisions have to be taken, and action has to follow carrying out what was decided. In fact, of course, decisions are always taken. A postponement is a decision to do nothing, at least for the time being. At times that will be a wise decision to take, but if it is nothing but procrastination it is a hindrance to the church and can do much more damage than is sometimes realised.
As far as we know the church in Jerusalem had no set procedure for meetings or the appointment of others to ministry. The apostles acted as they did in getting together about the provision for the widows because they needed to do this. They called the church together because they realised this was the best way to proceed. We may believe that in acting as they did they were setting a precedent. Supremely, however, they were acting wisely, as spiritually minded men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We like to have our procedures all set down in a constitution, or some such document, and it is wise, probably necessary, to have agreed ways of doing things. Yet at the same time, we must not be hidebound by what has always been done in the past. Indeed, as circumstances change and membership alters, and new challenges and different issues confront the church it may well be the case that new procedures are called for. The ideal is always so to act that everyone will be pleased because they see the wisdom of what is being proposed. What works in practice is always better than theoretical or out-dated ways that hinder the functioning of the church.
4 The ministries
There has been some debate about whether the seven who were appointed here were the first deacons. It is often said that this is so; but others are doubtful because the seven are not explicitly called ‘deacons’. The way I look at it is this. The Lord Jesus, as far as we know, did not give any instructions about appointing elders or deacons. When Jesus ascended into heaven we know there were 120 disciples in Jerusalem and more than 500 brothers in Galilee, and doubtless these figures do not represent the sum total of those who believed in him. Out of these there were eleven who were given the name of apostle, and Acts has already told us how Matthias had been added to that number to replace Judas Iscariot. The apostles are very prominent in the early chapters of Acts and we know they had a crucial teaching role in the Jerusalem church because the believers after the day of Pentecost devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching. Which means they listened carefully to that teaching, believed it and lived by it. So the apostles were clearly exercising a spiritual ministry in the church, and their very action here shows them exercising spiritual oversight and seeking to remove the grounds for complaint. Notice too that they said about the seven, whom we will appoint to this duty.
The seven were appointed by the church and exercised a ministry within the church. They served the church in the specific way which was needed at that time. So we find there were two groups of men recognised within the church to fulfil two different sorts of service; one a ministry of teaching and spiritual oversight, the other a ministry that is described as ‘serving tables’. This was very necessary at the time, and its nature was more practical than directly spiritual. It was surely in this way that the Lord guided his people to develop a twofold ministry within local churches: a teaching/oversight ministry and a more practical ministry according to the needs of the church. This clearly matches with what we find later on in the New Testament with its description of elders and deacons.
The most important point is that both of these were functional ministries, both groups served in the church. They had not been appointed to confer among themselves, but to work in the church. That doesn’t mean that the apostles didn’t need to meet and discuss together, clearly in this case they needed to and so they did. It would also have been necessary for the seven to decide among themselves how they would share out the work they had to do. The point is not about meetings at all, but the carrying out of what needs to be done. Meetings are about decisions, and the work is carrying out what has been decided. The work of the seven required them to attend diligently and faithfully to providing for the needs of the widows. This still left time for Stephen to exercise a powerful ministry in other ways, but we can be sure that that was not at the expense of the responsibility that had been placed upon his shoulders.
I don’t want to over-stress this point, but experience suggests that if church leaders and church meetings sometimes find it hard to come to decisions, it seems even harder actually to implement the decisions that have been made. I say this only partly from my own experience as a pastor, but more from what I have begun to hear as I now have opportunity to visit more churches. It is true that we live at a time when people seem busier than ever, though that is partly because there is so much more that we are able to do in these days. But what we are talking about is the Lord’s work, the thoroughness and efficiency with which things that are necessary are carried out in the churches of Jesus Christ. We cannot do everything, and sometimes churches try to take on more than they can cope with. But some things are priorities, and these need to be recognised, and they need to be done properly, in a way which honours the Lord and is a testimony to those who have contact with the church.
Let’s come back to the two sorts of ministries mentioned here. There is the spiritual care of members. This is the responsibility of the pastor or pastor and elders. Not that it is always their responsibility to visit or give counsel themselves, but it is their responsibility to ensure that appropriate care is given. It is also their responsibility, as here in this passage, to see that as far as possible, others are appointed to cover those areas of church life that lie beyond their direct ministry.
Let me throw in a rather provocative suggestion because I’m more and more coming to the conclusion that we have got things the wrong way round. We tend to appoint deacons and then decide what they should do – though in many churches I’m not sure that every deacon is given anything specific to do. Some, treasurers and secretaries, for example, often work extremely hard, whereas others seem to have no particular responsibilities at all. My own belief is that we should appoint people to fulfil specific functions – as was done in Acts 6. These, then, are the deacons, the servants of the church: those who serve the church according to the task they have been given. Whether you agree with that or not I do think it is important for us to think of deacons as having a functional role in the church; there are things that they do, and they are to be done thoroughly and well. It is a fact, too, of course, that there is plenty of scope for deacons, and all church members, to act on their own initiative without waiting to be given any specific task.
5 The explanation
How is it that everything was carried out so smoothly in the Jerusalem church? As I said at the beginning everything was carried out quickly and harmoniously, and the cause for complaint was tackled and the whole situation put right. What were the factors that were responsible for this?
The first is simply this; this is a church. It is not a business or a club or a trade union or a local council; it is an assembly of God’s people. It is a spiritual body made up of those who have been born again by the Spirit’s power, who are all united by faith to Jesus Christ, children of the same heavenly Father who have been brought together into one church by God’s providential ordering. It is a fellowship of those who share a common life, a common Lord, a common hope, a common purpose, a common destiny. The reality of Christian fellowship is very marked in the early chapters of Acts. In chapter 2:42 the second thing we are told the believers devoted themselves to after the apostles’ teaching was fellowship.
Remember also these verses from that chapter: And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people. And chapter 4:32 says, Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. I am not concerned at this point with the way they shared their goods, though that does have something to say to us today, but simply with the obvious sense of unity, of belonging, of joy together, of one heart and one soul. There is, surely, a considerable challenge here.
The second factor is their prayerfulness. Again this is something marked in these first chapters. We might almost say that the church was born in a prayer meeting. Chapter 1:14, All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. Chapter 2 begins, When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place, suggesting they were met together for prayer once again. The Pentecost converts devoted themselves not only to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, but also to the breaking of bread and the prayers, the plural word being suggestive there. In chapter 4 after Peter and John had been released by the council we read, When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard it they lifted up their voices together to God and said, Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, and they continued praying to their sovereign Lord. And then we read, And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.
It is quite clear that the church in Jerusalem prayed about everything. Here we find the apostles saying, we will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. And when the seven have been selected, These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. There are two things we ought not to overlook about this. Firstly, there is here a recognition of the lordship of Christ as head of the church. This is what Peter expressed so powerfully on the day of Pentecost, God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. It was the will of Christ that the apostles and the church desired to be done. This I take it to be the whole purpose of church meetings. They are not simply a type of secular democracy; one member, one vote. The church comes together in an attitude of prayer to seek together the will of its Lord and Master.
Secondly, they expected the will of Christ to be expressed as the Holy Spirit guided them. There is, of course, considerable reference to the Holy Spirit in these chapters. It is especially remarkable to look at what we are told in chapter 15. Here we have a meeting of the Jerusalem church together with Paul and Barnabas and others representing the concerns of the church at Antioch. There was much debate and after James had given his judgement a letter was written to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It contained this phrase: For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements. It may be that that indicates a more definitive guidance by the Spirit than we can expect in these days, but we should pray with submission to our Head, expecting the Spirit to guide and lead us to decisions that are wise and honouring to Christ. Church meetings ought to be joyful and thankful, even exciting, meetings as God’s people are led together in ways that are good in the eyes of the Lord.
Perhaps these two are the most obvious factors, but I would like to mention two more which are not explicit here, but which I think are clearly implied by the sense of fellowship the church enjoyed. The first is that there can surely be no doubt that the members were concerned for the good of the whole church. Their sense of oneness, their readiness to give and to share, the fact that the whole gathering was pleased with what the apostles proposed all point to this. They had the welfare of the whole church and all its members at heart. How important this is. There is no individualism or factionalism here.
Then I believe we can say that there was a mutual humility and submissiveness among them. They had taken Christ’s yoke upon them and so they too were in some measure meek and lowly in heart. What Paul prayed for the Ephesians was surely found among them. Walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
And the more, by God’s grace, our churches are like this, not only will problems be solved and church meetings lead to progress and wise appointments of those who serve in the church. The spirit of love, unity and care we are thinking about will spill over into spontaneous and informal action. I was talking to someone recently who had not been able to get to any service for quite some time. He was standing at his front door when a deacon from the church came past and, stopping to speak, mentioned that he hadn’t seen him recently. My friend told him he wasn’t well, and suggested the deacon might like to drop in and see him occasionally. Here was a deacon who lived 50 yards from another member who hadn’t been to church for weeks. He had to pass his door every time he went home and yet, it seems, it had never crossed his mind even just to call and enquire how he was doing. I am afraid that that example is not an isolated case.
6 The sequel
The seven were chosen, the apostles set them apart for their work with prayer and the laying on of hands. What next? And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. A situation that could have seriously hindered the work actually resulted in even greater blessing. The apostles were set free to give undivided attention to prayer and ministry of the word. The needs of the widows were fully met, and the church just grew and grew. In fact large numbers of the most unlikely people were converted to Jesus Christ, the priests.
It would, of course, be foolish to think that if we solve a problem, or care for one another in the church, or appoint those who can a meet a present need, or if our church life is well-ordered and things are done efficiently and well, that this is necessarily going to lead to growth. But these are good things in themselves, and it is always right to do what is good. And who knows what God might yet do in churches that seek in every area of their life to glorify him?
No comments:
Post a Comment