In the background there still
lingers cultural distinctions of the sectarianism resulting from regional and
cultural origins within the early church community. The early distinctions were
made between the Hebrew/Palestinian Jews and the Diaspora/Hellenized Jews. Acts
6:1 records, “. . . the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their
widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.” This portion of
scripture gives the account of how distinctions were made between the Hebrews
and the Hellenists. Wood and Marshall explain the differences,
The
earliest occurrence of the word (Hellenists) in Greek literature is in Acts
6:1, where it denotes a group of Jewish Christians in the primitive church of
Jerusalem, distinguished from the ‘Hebrews’ (hebraioi), who were probably Aramaic-speaking. The seven almoners[1],
including Stephen and Philip, appointed in response to the Hellenists’
complaint that the ‘Hebrew’ widows were being favoured over theirs in the
distribution of charity from the common fund, all appear by their names to have
been Hellenists (Acts 6:5). Many of the Hellenists would have connections with
the Diaspora, whereas most of the Hebrews would be Palestinian Jews.[2]
There is no indication of a Gentile presence in the
Jerusalem church at this point, but the Hellenists are clearly present. The
conflict that arose concerning the distribution of food amid the widows was
clearly between Jewish Christians of differing cultural origins and perspectives,
Palestinian Christians and the Hellenist Christians. The discontinuity
witnessed in the in Acts indicates the initial inclusion of others as
exemplified by Jesus’ practices and strategies was not yet normative amid the
Jerusalem Christians. For some reason the issue of holding onto traditions of
separation by ethos/culture or sectarianism that Jesus challenged still appears
in the early church. Flemming affirms, “Perhaps we could say that the Jerusalem
believers unconsciously ‘inculturate’ the newness of the gospel into their own
Jewish heritage.”[3]
The implication is that the early church community brought with them their
communal orthodoxies (right beliefs accepted as normative for the community) at
the expense of the praxis/practices and orthopathy[4]
of Jesus.
A solution to the crisis was worked
out demonstrating a transition of praxis/ and orthopathy engaging a positive deviance
approach. González shares an explanation on the transition,
. . . the twelve
called an assembly that appointed seven men ‘to serve tables.’ . . . the idea
was that the seven would have administrative tasks, and the twelve would
continue preaching and teaching. . . . it would seem that all seven were
‘Hellenists,’ for they had Greek names. Thus, the naming of the seven would
appear as an attempt to give greater voice in the affairs of the church to the
Hellenistic party, while the twelve, all ‘Hebrews,’ would continue being the
main teachers and preachers.[5]
The solution offered
by the Apostles (the acting council) establishes what appears to be a
satisfactory solution, but it still indicates a sense that a sectarian division
still exists with the ‘Hebrews’ (Jerusalem Christians) as the authoritative
power. When persecution broke out it began with the Hellenist, Stephen became
the first martyr in Acts 7:54-8:1, but the Apostles (the Hebrews) appear
unaffected by the persecution. Johnson and Harrington reveal a progression in
what is transpiring in the church,
. . . the persecution in
Jerusalem that affects everyone but the apostles (8:1) serves as an ideal
narrative transition. . . . the tension in Luke’s narrative from this point on
has to do with the dialectic of rejection and acceptance, and with humans trying
their best to catch up to God’s action in the world.[6]
A line of differentiation
in the narrative appears between the Hebrew and the Hellenists with the
Hellenists becoming the target of the persecution. González stresses that
there existed a distinction between the Hebrews and the Hellenists during the
early persecution,
. . . when
persecution finally broke out and Christians had to flee Jerusalem, the
apostles were able to remain. . . . Saul seemed to ignore them. All this would
seem to indicate that the earliest persecution was aimed mostly at the
‘Hellenistic’ Christians, and that the ‘Hebrews’ had much less difficulty.[7]
The indication is the “Hebrew” Christians remained
adequately enough within the Judaic traditions and practices thereby avoiding
the initial persecution. This raises questions about the strategies and
practices the Hebrew church used in relationship to Jesus’ example in the
Gospels.
The Hellenists Christians appear to
have adopted Jesus’ practices and strategies that subvert the cultural norms
within the Judaic traditions. They reaped the consequences and initially become
the first bearers of the Gospel to the surrounding regions. Flemming discerns,
“. . . we see the actualization of the boundary-shattering work of the Spirit,
as the gospel moves incrementally from a singularly Jewish to a multicultural
sphere of influence.”[8]
The Hellenists became the source of the socio-cultural expansion of
Christianity, the ones who bridge the cultural barriers. They become the
churches first positive deviant practitioners. The Hebrew church, on the other
hand, appears to remain solidly within the Judaic tradition.
The Hebrew Christians appear to
have an apparent acceptability within the Judaic community, thereby allowing
them to remain in Jerusalem. The Hebrew church does not appear to have
continuity in adopting the practices and strategies Jesus modeled in the
Gospels. At least not at the comparable level that distinguished them as with
Hellenist Christians assimilation of Jesus’ example. The direct socio-cultural
bridging of Christianity begins with and would be dominated by the “Hellenist,”
the Greek cultured Judaic followers of Jesus the Christ.
[1] E. A.
Livingstone, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
(Oxford University Press, 2003), 16.
[2] Wood
and Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 464.
[3] Flemming,
Contextualization in the New Testament, 31. Flemming references Anthony
T. Lincoln, “Pentecost,” in Dictionary of
the Later New Testament and Its Development, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter
H Davids (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 905. This is
supported by the clear impression given by Luke that the entire crowd
understood Peter’s sermon, which was likely delivered in Aramaic (Acts
2:14ff.).
[4]
Orthopathy is a recent term entering into theological conversations, it refers
to right affections, as orthodoxy
indicates right doctrines, and
Orthopraxy indicates right practices (italics
are mine).
[5] González,
The Story of Christianity, 19.
[6] Johnson
and Harrington, The Acts of the Apostles, 150.
[7] González,
The Story of Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment