I MOVED THIS TO EXPOSITION -- DIDN'T MEAN TO POST IT HERE
(this is my first post -- be gentle)
Does anybody but me read Acts 6 as an indictment of the Apostles?! Indictment might be too strong a word, but here are these Apostles who know the scriptures (filled w/ a themes in which God uses the small and weak and the least of these), have just spent 3 1/2 years with Jesus who affirms that and even washes feet, and the first decision they make when the Grecian widows are being overlooked is appoint servants (Grecian servants!) because they have more important things to do than "wait tables?"
That alone might not lead me to this heresy, except the very next "story" is the martyrdom of Stephen who is NOT killed for waiting tables, but is killed for preaching the word (oh, and he performs more miracles and signs than the Apostles put together). And the very next story is Phillip who is not featured waiting tables, but evangelizing in radical ways, interpreting the scriptures, baptising (w/o the proper ordination, mind you!), and being "whooshed" off to new places in miraculous fashion! I find it hard to believe that the positioning of those stories is accidental.
I know this isn't the traditional interpretation (and yes, I know the traditional interpretation), but I know I can't be the first person to think about it this way (Clark's commentary vaguely hints at it) and I want to read more. Any suggestions?
(this is my first post -- be gentle)
Does anybody but me read Acts 6 as an indictment of the Apostles?! Indictment might be too strong a word, but here are these Apostles who know the scriptures (filled w/ a themes in which God uses the small and weak and the least of these), have just spent 3 1/2 years with Jesus who affirms that and even washes feet, and the first decision they make when the Grecian widows are being overlooked is appoint servants (Grecian servants!) because they have more important things to do than "wait tables?"
That alone might not lead me to this heresy, except the very next "story" is the martyrdom of Stephen who is NOT killed for waiting tables, but is killed for preaching the word (oh, and he performs more miracles and signs than the Apostles put together). And the very next story is Phillip who is not featured waiting tables, but evangelizing in radical ways, interpreting the scriptures, baptising (w/o the proper ordination, mind you!), and being "whooshed" off to new places in miraculous fashion! I find it hard to believe that the positioning of those stories is accidental.
I know this isn't the traditional interpretation (and yes, I know the traditional interpretation), but I know I can't be the first person to think about it this way (Clark's commentary vaguely hints at it) and I want to read more. Any suggestions?
Last edited:
