Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.
Try Tabletalk NowAlready receive Tabletalk magazine every month?
Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.
I remember a friend’s saying years ago, “One of the compelling things about the Bible is that it presents its ‘heroes’ with warts and all.” This is true for individuals such as Abraham, David, and Peter, to name a few. But this is also true for the church corporately, especially when referring to the church as portrayed in the book of Acts. We readily acknowledge that Paul’s epistles to the various churches such as Galatians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians address problems within these congregations, but we tend to view the church in Acts through a more idealistic lens. We are inclined to think that this was when the church was of one accord and continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine.
While there is much that we can glean from Luke’s portrayal of the church in the book of Acts that would be helpful in our current moment in a positive sense, there are also lessons to be learned from negative experiences. Specifically, I refer to Acts 6:1: “Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.” The result of this conflict leads to the establishment of a diaconal ministry within the church. But my focus is on the fact of the conflict itself.
Positively, the daily distribution among the widows is a concrete example of the unity of spirit described in 2:44–45. In the exercise of this genuinely gracious endeavor, however, there arises a conflict. The widows of the Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews from outside the Holy Land) were being neglected by the Hebrews (Aramaic-speaking Jews from within the Holy Land). The footnote to this verse in the Reformation Study Bible says, “Here the age-old problem of discrimination had emerged: the widows of Greek-speaking Jews were considered outsiders by native-born Jews.”
So although the church in its infant state was grounded in the Apostles’ doctrine, there was a flaw in their fellowship that was inconsistent with the doctrine they professed. Aside from the fact that this conflict between the Hellenistic Jews and the Palestinian Jews was contrary to the Mosaic law, it was certainly the antithesis of the unity that Jesus taught as characteristic of His disciples. Although the office of deacon addresses the immediate concern raised in Acts 6:1, it is apparent from various exhortations throughout the New Testament Epistles that a wrong view and treatment of others even within the fellowship continued to be a problem. To put it another way, their view and treatment of others reflected the cultural and social norms of the world (fallen humanity collectively), which corresponds to our individual fallen state.
The horizontal effect of our fallen state is that we do not love our neighbor as ourselves, as Jesus illustrates in the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus says that the essence of the law is to love our neighbor as ourselves, but our fallen nature and the fallen world around us redefine the very idea of who our neighbor is and justify views and treatment that is less than neighborly. As we see in the example from Acts 6:1, as the body of Christ, we are to view and treat others in the fellowship according to who we are in Christ and not by the standards of the world. This should also be true for how we view and treat our nonbelieving neighbors. We cannot allow the world to otherize our neighbors to the point of justifying unneighborly conduct toward them.
The Apostle Paul says in Galatians:
Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (6:9–10)
Our treatment of others should be without partiality; in other words, it should have no bias that arises either from our corruption or from our cultural conditioning. In Acts 6, partiality was based on place of origin. In James 2, the concern is about showing favor or disfavor according to perceived social or economic status:
My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (vv. 1–4)
Jesus exposes this sort of partiality in His parable about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. The sheep are those who have done good as they saw need and opportunity, whereas the goats seem to indicate that they would have responded differently had they known it was the Lord (v. 44). We are the body of Christ, with each part knit together. Our circumstances and backgrounds are different, but we cannot allow either our corrupt nature or our cultural conditioning to make those differences a justification for making distinctions that are contrary to the grace we ourselves have received.
As Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:21, “Keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.”