Apostles Indicted? Acts 6

[rhetoric]

(thinking big picture here)
(this is my first post -- be gentle) [I accidently posted this in hermeneutics -- trying to delete it there!]

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?

 

[Quoth]

What do you mean by "an indictment"? That the Apostles did something terribly wrong in Acts 6?

 

[OzSpen]

rhetoric,

To which verses in Acts 6 are you referring?

That alone might not lead me to this heresy

What is this heresy that you are saying you are promoting? An indictment of the 12 apostles??

Surely vv. 1-7 deal with giftedness and an allocation of roles: (1) Prayer and ministry of the Word by the 12 (v. 4) and (2) the practical ministry of "serving tables" for those who are gifted deacons.

In vv. 1-7 I can't see an indictment of the 12.

Perhaps you are seeing something I can't see. Therefore, would you explain further?

 

[rhetoric]

I suppose I'm accusing them of pride -- "thinking of themselves more highly than they ought" because they don't want to wait tables. Refusing to serve doesn't seem terribly consistent w/ the teaching and example of Christ.

Obviously there isn't a particular text that condemns the 12, but immediately following the appointment of servants (deacons) to wait tables, Luke chronicles the miracles, signs, and very Apostle like actions of two of these "servants!" They act so undeacon-like (Phillip even baptises w/o proper ordination) that some commentators speculate that the church must have given them new commissions/ordinations and just not told us about it! That just seems more of a stretch than to claim that this is Luke's way of empowering "the least of these."

One extreme could be, "they are sinning," but I don't think you have to claim that. The position on the other side would be they may not be sinning -- but that if nothing else, God is saying, "the work of the Kingdom of God (miracles, signs, preaching, evangelism, baptism, etc.) are the work of all the church. The Apostles say they can't wait tables because they have to provide the "ministry of the word," but that is precisely what Stephen is doing when he is martyred and precisely what Phillip is doing when he explains the prophet to the Ethiopian.

Clearly all in the Church found the 7 to be filled with the Holy Spirit and etc. -- so I don't think we have to condemn the Apostles (which is why I said, "indict" is too strong a word), nor do we have to find fault with the establishment of church structure by the formation of deacons -- but we must at least say that God and God's work will not be limited by the Church's vision of Church structure.