My church has been going through the book of Acts recently. This passage is a sort of odd aside, having to do with the administration of the local church. But these kinds of small vignettes can be very helpful to understand how best to order our own practices in the church. Hopefully we can draw out some observations and put it to the question as to how the church ought to be organized.
Context
After a Period of Exponential Growth
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.
First of all, it is good to note that one of the reasons why this had become an issue is that, praise God, the church had become very large very quickly.
Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Acts 4:4 But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.
Acts 5:14 And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women…
Given all of these verses, there were numbered 3000 people, 5000 men (and presumably their households), plus adding to the number day by day, and finally in verse 5:14: “more than ever”. I’d put a conservative estimate at around 20,000 people in a few months. This is pretty much unimaginable growth.
As a side note, it’s worth pointing out that though Christ did condemn the Pharisees and Jewish leaders for leading their flocks astray and God began to work through the Church instead of through Israel, this by no means meant that the Jews individually were left out of God’s plan. The word had gone out first to the Jews and many thousands of people had come to Christ.
Generous Givers
The early followers of God had been very generous with their money, laying it at the feet of the apostles to distribute to the poor.
Acts 4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
It’s worth questioning why they were selling their lands and houses. In this economic context, selling ones’ land was tantamount to selling the means of your own livelihood. Where did they live, if they’re selling their houses?
I think it is likely that these are houses and estates in the near vicinity of Jerusalem. Probably they were sold so that they could stay with the church locally and continue to reach the Jews in Jerusalem before the end came.
Jesus had predicted the fall of Jerusalem during his ministry, warning his followers that they should flee Judea when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies to avoid the coming catastrophe. (Luke 21:20) Therefore it is very likely that the Jews in Jerusalem knew that the time to move out was coming and therefore they had no reason to hold onto unmovable properties.
We know from Paul’s letters that money was not intended to be simply given out to whomever didn’t have it. There are two passages that communicate the importance of priority in charity.
1 Tim 5:3 Honor widows who are truly widows. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. 5 She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, 6 but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. 7 Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. 11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry 12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan. 16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.
2 Thes 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
It is clear then, that the provision for the poor was for those who had no family or means of supporting themselves. This is why James mentions “widows and orphans” as the recipients of the mercy of the truly religious. This is not a blanket statement of improving the conditions of the poor more generally, nor is it intended to be given to those who are poor through idleness.
It’s challenging to know exactly what the administration of the early church was, particularly in the doomed city of Jerusalem. The economics of the situation are far from clear. Therefore it is difficult to make any clear associations between now and then in terms of how the church ought to structure its economic life.
However, we can articulate a few points with some certainty.
It is a Christian virtue to be generous, and the genuine conversion often results in an outpouring of generosity.
Those who ought to receive priority are the “widows and orphans”, ie: those who do not have any family to care for them or any capacity to work for a living.
To reward idleness is specifically prohibited.
Another Crisis Arose
To understand what specifically the controversy was about, we must identify first who the various players in the scenario are. The Grecians and the Hebrews are identified. To be clear, these are both Jewish people. If you recall, the preaching of the Word had begun during the festival of Pentecost, when Jewish visitors from all over the world were present in Jerusalem and able to hear the Word preached.
Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
Therefore there arose some controversy between the Jews that were from Jerusalem and those who had come from other nations. Particularly, the accusation was that the widows of the Greek nations were being overlooked in the distribution to the poor.
Matthew Henry rightly points out that the text in the original language is by no means clear whether the accusation was true or not. We cannot discern from the text alone that the Grecian Jews were justified in their criticism. As he puts it:
Perhaps this complaint was groundless and unjust, and there was no cause for it; but those who, upon any account, lie under disadvantages (as the Grecian Jews did, in comparison with those that were Hebrews of the Hebrews) are apt to be jealous that they are slighted when really they are not so; and it is the common fault of poor people that, instead of being thankful for what is given them, they are querulous and clamorous, and apt to find fault that more is not given them, or that more is given to others than to them; and there are envy and covetousness, those roots of bitterness, to be found among the poor as well as among the rich, notwithstanding the humbling providences they are under, and should accommodate themselves to.
The point he is making is that it is common among recipients of charity (to their shame) that instead of being grateful for what they have and allowing their lives to glorify God even in humble circumstances, they often clamor for more, pointing out the discrepancies in what they have as opposed to what others have. (Matt 20:15)
The Apostles’ Response
But the church is called to be above reproach and if there is the slightest doubt that honor is being satisfied, it should be addressed. The apostles do so.
Acts 6:2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 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. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
The apostles see clearly that this task has become too large for them to effectively oversee while still fulfilling their duties as teachers of the Word. In order to be effective in their primary calling, they must not allow themselves to be distracted by fulfilling the other roles that the Church required. This is not because the work itself was less important, but because the church has different roles for each individual.
It is simply not possible or advisable that each person in the church do the same things. In a sufficiently large and complex church body, there will be a need for full-time administrative and teaching roles. This goes back to Ephesians 4, where Paul delineates the various roles that each person might fulfill in the body.
Especially when a person is particularly gifted in a certain task, it is inadvisable to burden them with responsibilities that are unrelated. In this case, the teachers of the Word not only had to spend much of their time (and energy) preaching in the temple square, they had to devote their efforts to prayer, knowing that it is not enough for the Word to be declared to sinful mankind, an act of the Spirit would be necessary to see conversion.
As Joel Beeke put it in his explanation of the Puritan teachers and evangelists:
Finally, the Puritans saturated all their evangelistic efforts in prayer. They were “men of the closet” first of all. They were great preachers only because they were also great petitioners who wrestled with God for divine blessing upon their preaching. Richard Baxter said, “Prayer must carry on our work as well as preaching; he preacheth not heartily to his people, that prayeth not earnestly for them. If we prevail not with God to give them faith and repentance, we shall never prevail with them to believe and repent.” And Robert Traill wrote, “Some ministers of meaner gifts and parts are more successful than some that are far above them in abilities; not because they preach better, so much as because they pray more. Many good sermons are lost for lack of much prayer in study…”
The church today desperately needs such preachers whose private prayers season their pulpit messages. The Puritan pastors jealously guarded their personal devotional time. They set their priorities on spiritual, eternal realities. They knew that if they ceased to watch and pray constantly they would be courting spiritual disaster. Faithful, steadfast, and sincere, they were God-fearing men who continually examined themselves and were painfully aware, as John Flavel said, “that a man may be objectively a spiritual [man], and all the while subjectively a carnal man.” They believed, as John Owen noted: “No man preacheth that sermon well that doth not first preach it to his own heart.… If the word do not dwell with power in us, it will not pass with power from us.” Unlike many modern evangelists, the quality of their spiritual life was uniformly high.
Thus, they called upon the people of God to select men of good repute. These would become the new stewards of the funds set aside for the widows and orphans.
It is not clear to me whether the apostles themselves were possibly under attack, but the way I read it is thus:
The apostles were, at least in the final estimation, in charge of determining how the funds were distributed
The accusation was that the funds were being distributed inequitably
Thus, it appears to me that perhaps the apostles had the stewards be chosen by the people in order to be above reproach in their distribution.
Acts 6:5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.
The people seemed very happy to do so, and it seems unlikely to be a coincidence that each of the men chosen had a Greek name. Perhaps the final authority of the Hebrew apostles combined with the Grecian stewards combined to give everyone reason to believe that the money was going to be distributed fairly.
Acts 6:6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
As the apostles receive these new stewards over the critical work of caring for the poor among God’s people, they “prayed and laid their hands on them”. This is one of those “weird” things in the Bible. Several great thinkers have pointed out that when you encounter something strange in the Bible that doesn’t seem to fit, there is a chance that the Holy Spirit is trying to draw your attention to it.
The thing to note here is that most of us:
have no category for “laying hands” on someone
don’t know what the significance of this act is supposed to be
So therefore, we have a choice in interpreting this act. Should we do this blindly without understanding in contexts that “feel right”? Should we copy the times when the church does it and hope that the effect is the same?
One example we could give is Timothy:
1 Tim 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.
2 Tim 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands…
There is clearly some precedent for laying on hands, but what could it be? In what context is it appropriate?
These are interesting passages. The New Testament does not give any instruction as to when and how it should be done, nor what the purpose is. The best we have are examples. Roughly they fall into three categories:
Laying hands on people who are being granted some kind of new role
Laying hands on people to give the Holy Spirit (wouldn’t it be great to be able to give people salvation with a high five?)
Laying hands to heal (Jesus did a lot of this)
But even if we understand that missionaries and stewards and Timothy had their hands laid upon them, and we assume it is to inaugurate a new role, and we follow the example of the early church cause they did it, the question remains: is this a cultural phenomenon? Is it something they just did, with no more significance than a secret handshake? Is it something that had some greater significance, and if it did, how would we know that?
Laying on Hands
To put a caveat around this section, I have not, prior to this teaching, given much thought to the laying on of hands. That said, I will endeavor to understand as well as I am able what the Bible teaches on the subject.
One clue we have is that there is a “doctrine” of laying on hands according to Hebrews:
Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
These are to be considered “elementary doctrines”. Therefore, if we do not understand the concept of laying on hands, doesn’t that prove to us that we have not understood the “elementary doctrine of Christ”?
There is a further clue in 1 Tim 5:
1 Tim 5:22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too quickly and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
NASB
This would imply that something about the particular use of laying on hands that Paul has in mind would put the person who lays on hands in a position of responsibility for the person whom hands were laid upon.
The answer would perhaps be found in the Old Testament. I know there are many Christians who believe (wish?) that we are not bound by Old Testament law and precedent, but A, if you read this blog with any regularity you know I don’t go in for such nonsense, and B, even if you think that, it never hurts to look.
And it turns out that all three of the senses above are commanded by God at various points in the Old Testament:
Lev 1:4, 3:2, 4:15, and 16:12 prescribe the laying on of hands when the priest is making a sacrifice. Given that Christ is our sacrifice, it is likely that this use is no longer relevant to Christians today. However, it is possible, based on Romans 12:2, since we are a “living sacrifice”, we could argue that there is some connection. However, I am not convinced of this, since in at least the chapter 16 instance, the laying on of hands seems to be imputing sin to the sacrifice symbolically.
In Numbers 8:10 the Levites have the entire congregation (ecclesia, as Stephen uses the word in Acts, same word we use for “church”) lay their hands on those who are being put into “service of the Lord”. Specifically in context:
Numbers 8:6 “Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them. 7 Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves. 8 Then let them take a bull from the herd and its grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil, and you shall take another bull from the herd for a sin offering. 9 And you shall bring the Levites before the tent of meeting and assemble the whole congregation of the people of Israel. 10 When you bring the Levites before the Lord, the people of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites, 11 and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that they may do the service of the Lord.
In context it is washing, sacrifice and the laying on of hands that confirms them in the work of God. Of course, we in the Christian context know that the sacrifice is Christ, and therefore all that would remain is baptism and the laying on of hands, precisely the two concepts that are paired in our Hebrew passage.
In Numbers 27:18 Joshua is given to share in Moses’ authority because he has Moses’ hands laid upon him. It is clear in the verse quoted that Joshua already has the Spirit in some sense, but something further is granted by the laying on of hands as demonstrated in Deuteronomy 34:9
Deut 34:9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him. So the people of Israel obeyed him and did as the Lord had commanded Moses.
There are two other uses of “laying on hands” in the Old Testament:
In Gen 48:14 with Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob lays his hands upon their heads to confer some blessing.
In Leviticus 24:14 it is commanded to kill someone who has blasphemed the name of the Lord, and the congregation is called upon to lay their hands upon him before stoning him.
The first seems to square pretty easily with our definitions given so far, but what about the second? I think it refers to the other uses of the concept in Leviticus, where the sacrifice has hands laid upon it. In this case, of course, the hands are laid upon a cursed individual, but Christ is the answer to the puzzle, as both cursed one and sacrifice.
Therefore, it turns out (unsurprisingly), that the laying on of hands has been used in two contexts in the church historically:
During Confirmation, which is traditionally separated from baptism, in order to confirm the receipt of the Holy Spirit when someone comes of age and can make a free will faith decision to follow God.
During Ordination, when a new minister or leader is being commissioned, in order to follow the ideal of blessing and of bestowing authority upon those so commissioned. This would also explain the 1 Tim 5 verse where Timothy is “not to be too hasty in the laying on of hands”.
It raises the question, quite rightly, that if we are commanded to do this, is it in fact legitimate to have a leader who is not commissioned with the laying on of hands? Does such a one carry authority? Either it is an empty ritual with no purpose or it has effectual power. The Bible definitely claims effectual power in the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament practiced it frequently. In Timothy’s case it is stated that spiritual gifts were bestowed upon him through the laying on of hands.
I would argue that it is in fact the case that we should practice this. I believe two laying on of hands are biblically commanded. The first, that when a person is redeemed by faith in Christ they should have their hands laid upon them to prepare them for the service of the Lord. Further, a minister of God’s Word who is acting under authority of a recognized authority must also have hands laid upon them.
Frankly this is somewhat of an embarrassing position for me to hold since we in this church do not practice the laying on of hands of individual believers when they devote their lives to the service of God. We *do* generally practice the laying on of hands when a person is raised into leadership, but for reasons that I assume have to do with COVID, the ritual was not practiced on me when I was raised up.
Therefore, to be consistent, I would argue that I have not received the blessing of the established members of our church to either serve God or lead. Honestly, I want to say “of course it’s just a ritual, the investiture is enough even if they don’t follow the practice”, but I am not sure about that. I can understand why religions that did not grow organically from the original church are distrusted by many, regardless of how much sense their exegesis of Scripture might make.
Conclusions
Acts 6:7 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 became obedient to the faith.
And we see that the blessing of God was upon the church for handling this crisis, and being above reproach. While it is not directly stated, I think the implication is that by choosing to be ethical and above reproach, even though it had nothing specifically to do with evangelism and growing the kingdom, God blessed their efforts due to their good stewardship of “a small thing”. (Luke 16:10)
This is where I hit upon one of my favorite themes: doing God’s work in God’s way. I firmly believe that if we devote ourselves to the practice of the Word of God, even in (especially in?) areas that have nothing to do specifically with “growing the kingdom” that we can expect that God will bless us with such growth. If we follow modern managerial, psychological and advertisement techniques to try to win followers of Christ, we might see small success but not lasting success.
I also believe that a church who does not dedicate themselves to fellowship and personal holiness will fail to see lasting growth, no matter what the short term results might look like. There is much we might gain by sacrificing to modernity’s idols, but if we wish to follow the Lord and not the culture, we must dedicate ourselves to His teaching and His law.
This means that, as Christian workers, we should be ready to admit our faults and our failures. They may be humiliating, and perhaps they are even unfair (as is likely with this passage), but removing any basis for critique against your character is an important aspect of being a Christian believer. If only many other Christians in history had been so diligent to preserve their name.
This does NOT mean “looking good to the watching world”. The important caveat is that we are nowhere called to adhere to what the people around us think is right. It’s a major failing of Christian teaching on the concept of “our witness” to think that this means we should adhere to what might look good to non-believers without reference to what God teaches. We are called to do *good* so that our reputation will be good. This can only ever mean “good in God’s eyes”. Not in the eyes of the watching world. We can believe that if we are doing what God calls us to do then:
1 Peter 3:16 [we may] keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who disparage your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
Our good behavior will speak in our name as we set out into the world, regardless of the fact that we are slandered. Although we will be hated and scorned by people who have turned away from God:
1 Peter 2:12 …so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God on the day of visitation.
This is about our reputation before God, not before man. We are to give no heed to our reputation among men; only reminding ourselves that if we do good we will be shown up in the end as having been good among them, regardless of their slander to the contrary.
It is in this way we will be blessed by God and no other. If you shame yourself by agreeing with the world and concerning yourself with what their judgments of your ethics are, you are by definition disregarding the ethics of God. We owe an explanation of the way we live to Him and Him only. As we follow that, and yet seek to be above reproach if any legitimate cause for doubt is laid at our feet, we will see the Lord bless us and our church grow in numbers and in maturity.
Amen.