Acts 6:1-7

        What could be interpreted as an 'idyllic' beginning in the church, is now disrupted with a sense of 'realism'.  From a Christian perspective this entails affirmation of a world infested with, and broken by, sin.  This intrusion into God's creation fragments our humanity, causing divisions that ordinarily would be celebrated as diversifying beauty.  Difference would complement not threaten, strengthen not weaken, and build up not tear down.  What is clear from Luke's writing is that while he is definitely an apologist for the premise that Jesus is the Christ and that those who follow him are the true people of God, he is striving to give an accurate accounting, and so he includes both the positives, e.g., the covenant fulfillment of THE spirit-filled community, e.g., Deut 15:4, but also, not only external threats, but internal as well, e.g., deceit (5:1-11) and probably prejudice and discrimination (6:1-7).

        Perspective makes no small contribution to one's understanding of the text.  By 'perspective' I mean less than an over-arching worldview, than I do a kind of 'hermeneutic of suspicion' e.g., Paul Ricoeur, deconstructionism, et. al.  According to those who readily find place for a deep suspicion of the authors of Scripture, the text is filled with ideologies that need to be identified and stripped away, both for the author and listener of the text.  As an example, many believe a lack of information  by Luke (acknowledged by conservatives too), e.g., what really was the problem, i.e., murmuring or prejudice?  How did the appointment of the seven, practically effect a solution?  And what lurks behind the supposed duty of the seven, i.e., serving tables, and the lengthy text devoted to their preaching, which seems to contradict the apostles reason for creating the group, i.e., so 'they' could be devoted to the ministry of the word?  What use is the mention of "a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith"?  Was there a doctrinal war emerging that finally gets resolved in Acts 15?  All of this 'lack of detail' points those who are strongly suspicious toward hidden issues that the text may try to hide.  From the beginning, then, this approach is very open to viewing the goal of the writers of the text with ideological suspicion, which translates into fabricating history for the purpose of that very ideology.  In this sense, Luke's desire to show the NT church as fulfilment of old covenant promises, could yield an almost a dream-like description of the early church (compare Deut 15:4 with Acts 4:34).  The job of the interpreter then is to 'deconstruct' the text to get at the hidden meaning; needless to say, beginning points are pivotal when it comes to interpretation.

        As an Evangelical person committed to the Reformation, my view of the text does NOT entail looking for hidden meanings, conscious or not, by the authors.  Not to sound overly fundamentalistic, but "how the text is received" reveals as much, if not more, than "doing the text."  While I share some of the aforementioned questions put forth by those who are more liberally inclined, I am not driven by a suspicion that assumes ulterior motives and therefore see the text of Scripture as inundated with ideologies that necessarily discourage a straight forward reading of the text.  To the contrary, I see no harm in taking the text at face-value, given proper historical, cultural, textual, and linguistical endeavors.  I do believe many valuable gleanings are to be had with post-critical scholarship.  Theologically, however, I am more committed to a hermeneutic of suspicion regarding us as readers, i.e., we do not want God to speak authoritatively, than those who wrote!

        So this is the long way of stating I'm not sure what to make of the text regarding the complaint vs. grumbling.  Arguments can be put forth on each end.  For instance, the very verbiage of "grumbling," yields possible association with the Israelites who grumbled about the lack of food (), which if Acts 4:34 yields a fulfillment of Deut 15:4, then it would not be a stretch to see a connection also with the grumbling, i.e., Acts 6:1 and Ex 16:7-12; especially sense the LXX is mimicked so closely regarding the growth of the church in the new covenant compared with Israel in the old covenant (compare Ex. 1:7 with  Acts 6:7) where the same verbiage is used to describe the increase in numbers, i.e., God's people were sojourners in the OT and in the NT (Heb 11:13); likewise, they grew in the beginning, and so the church grew in the beginning.  Luke's intentional about his use of language so the reader makes the connection, and 'sees' that the followers of Jesus are really the continuation of the people of God on earth.  The close verbal association would also suggest that maybe the apostolic leadership is coming under criticism, like that of Moses's day; further making the tie between God's people of the OT and that of the NT, stronger.  That's why it is hard to come down hard on the sinful grumbling option vs. the legitimate complaint option; perhaps it is both.  Certainly the text does not 'strongly' suggest sinful murmuring as the exclusive or even the major issue.


         So is there a major point to this text, a grand theme?  If one can be identified, I would say - love; that is, our fulfillment of the divine imperative to love one another.  The text opened with 'increase' (v. 1) and the passage closes with a string of adverbs celebrating the same (v. 7).  Sandwiched in the middle is the conflict.  It was resolved, in all probability, by staffing the group in charge with those who complained, which accounted for only one-fifth of the entire community.  This move was brilliant in itself.  However the real point of the passage is the reason for success.  The passage is clear, "And the word of God continued to increase...", it was the resolution of the complaint, or the fulfillment of love, that was responsible for the continued growth, coupled with the apostolic devotion to the ministry of the word.  The main lesson is to ensure that love for one another reigns.  Ortho-praxy, or right-ordered behavior toward one another, is every bit as important as ortho-doxy, or right ordered belief.  Divine causation stemmed from fulfillment of the royal law.  As Reformed folk correctly uphold the sovereignty of God in all things, we must never let go of the 'TENSION' in the relationship of divine/human causality.  It is in and through the fulfillment of God's imperatives that God's will comes about.  Such means are no less divine causality at work, than his direct action.  From our vantage point, then, there is tremendous 'conditionality' to God's reign, for it calls upon our faithful response to bring it about.  As Augustine correctly prayed, "Command what you will, O Lord, and will what you command." There is something very necessary and beautiful to our response.  We musn't hide under the rubric of divine sovereignty.  We must accept the tension and strive for obedience, knowing full well our response is called upon to bring about God's sovereign purposes!