Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? Matt 24:45 (NKJV)
When we read a text like this a number of questions suggest themselves. Does Jesus have a specific servant in mind? Is this text applicable to the first century or ‘the end’ or both? What does it mean to give the household food (literal/metaphoric…or both?) in due season? The wise and faithful servant is contrasted with the servant who abuses his fellow servants and eats and drinks with the drunken. How do we understand this?
The faithful and wise servant is made ruler over (kate,sthsen) the household. The Greek implies delegated responsibility and is translated as ‘put in charge’, ‘give the responsibility’ or ‘appointed’—the NLT renders the sense of the verse as follows; “Who is a faithful, sensible servant, to whom the master can give the responsibility of managing his household and feeding his family?” The same word is used in Acts for the appointment of the seven brethren (including Stephen) to oversee the Greek widows;
Therefore, brethren, seek out (evpiske,yasqe) from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over (katasth,somen) this business (th/j crei,aj). Acts 6:3 (NKJV)
One of the criteria for choosing the seven is that they are “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” and Stephen himself is described as a “man full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (v. 6) and “full of faith and power” (v. 8) and Stephen’s opponents “were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (v. 10).
Stephen forms the benchmark for the “faithful and wise servant” who is appointed (made ruler over) “this business”. Of course Stephen was following in the footsteps of his Master, whose own appointment had been foreshadowed by Moses—“[Jesus] who was faithful to Him who appointed (poih,santi) Him, as Moses also was faithful in all his house” (Heb 3:2, 5). During his trial Stephen reminded his accusers that the Hebrews resented the fact that Moses had been made ruler over them (the parallel with Jesus being implicit); “Who made you a ruler (kate,sthsen) and a judge over us?” (Acts 7:27) The answer was, of course, that God had appointed both Moses and his Son over his household – and now his Son had appointed Stephen – and the Jews rejected all three appointments.
Food in Due Season
The apostles appointed Stephen over “this business” (th/j crei,aj), the same word is used to describe the welfare requirements of first century Christians in Acts 2:45—“and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need” (crei,an). Stephen was therefore put in charge of solving the problem of discrimination against the Greek widows (Greek speaking Jewish widows from the Diaspora) in the distribution of welfare (v. 1). The apostles gave the instruction to seek out (evpiske,yasqe) seven men to resolve the problem. Interestingly, the same word is used by James; “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit (evpiske,ptesqai) orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (i.e. ‘of good reputation’)” (James 1:27).
Inner-biblical evidence from James supports an early dating of the epistle and points to composition by James the brother of John (not James the brother of the Lord) with the background shaped by the death of Stephen and the persecution that followed. The trial of Stephen operated as a catalyst in triggering a chain reaction that culminated in the conversion of Paul and the inclusion of the Gentiles. No longer would the early Christian church be regarded as a Jewish sect within the Synagogue. The inclusion of the Gentiles hastened the “parting of the ways”.
The way that James (a former disciple of John the Baptist) directs his invective against “adulterers and adulteresses” (James 4:4) and murderers (James 4:2) demonstrates that he has in mind the murder of John the Baptist (for condemning the adultery of Herod) and the murder of Stephen for “envy” (James 4:4-5; compare Num 11:26-29). James’ comments are therefore directed at a mixed audience within the synagogue which was compromised of Judaists and Christian converts.
For James, Stephen was the paradigm of a Jew who practised “true religion” the perfect combination of faith and works (James 2:26). The twelve apostles, including James, did not want to “leave the word of God” in order to “serve tables” (Acts 6:2). Stephen demonstrated that it was possible to do both—to give the Greek widows organic and spiritual food. He was fulfilling the commission given to Peter in John 21:16—“feed my sheep” and he is the first Christian outside the apostolic group to perform “signs and wonders” (Acts 6:8). It was the trial and death of Stephen which forced a parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity:
Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen. Acts 6:9 (NKJV)
There is confusion regarding this synagogue. Some consider it a singular institution, others as referencing more than one synagogue. What does the term “Freedmen” (Liberti/noj) mean? Were they former Roman slaves and converts to Judaism who had their synagogue at Jerusalem? It is possible that they were Jews living in Rome who had been made slaves by the Romans under Pompey but afterward were set free, and had built a synagogue at Jerusalem. Others understand “Libertines” as denoting the location of Libertum (A Jewish community in Africa) rather than a descriptive term.
However, the mention of Cilicia is interesting, as the apostle Paul was a citizen of Tarsus, which lies within the region of Cilicia (Acts 21:39; 22:3). Paul was born a Roman citizen (from a father who was a freedman? cf. Acts 22:28) and was a Hellenistic Jew. Paul was also closely involved in the dispute with Stephen and was present at his sentencing (Acts 8:1; 22:20). The tentative conclusion suggested here is that we are dealing with a singular synagogue in Jerusalem, home to well educated Hellenistic Diaspora Jews, who were Roman citizens by birth (like Paul). They resented the fact that Stephen cared for the Hellenistic widows (which they saw as their sphere of activity) and probably saw his concern as a drive to undermine the authority of their Synagogue. Moreover, they found that it was impossible to best Stephen in Scriptural proofs (even Saul of Tarsus?) demonstrating that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. It seems that the Diaspora Jews were more influential (and affluent) than we give them credit for and they wanted to stop the “contamination” of Christianity spreading beyond Jerusalem. Clearly the Sanhedrin was unable to halt the spread of the movement in Judea and therefore extreme measures were necessary to prevent dissemination to the Diaspora community.
Eating and Drinking with the Drunken
(45) Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? (46) Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. (47) Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. (48) But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming’, (49) and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards (mequo,ntwn), (50) the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, (51) and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
If Stephen is the paradigm for the faithful and wise servant then who is the evil servant who abuses his fellows and eats and drinks with the drunken? The evil servant is the believer who loses faith in the return of Christ— “Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Pet 3:4), expresses the same sentiment as Matt.24:48—“My master is delaying his coming”. During his trial Stephen pointed out that the Israelites had reacted the same way when Moses was in the presence of Yahweh on Mount Sinai; “we do not know what has become of him” (Acts 7:40). On that occasion the Israelites used the absence of Moses to make an idol (a copy of the calf-cherubim?) and “the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” (Exod 32:6). The apostasy and the orgy were justified as a “feast to the Lord” (v. 5) and both the creation of the idol and the feast was (reluctantly?) supported by the priesthood.
In Hezekiah’s day the “drunkards” were an element among from the northern tribes who had sought a new life in Judah and Jerusalem. Some within the captial acted as a fifth column[1] and betrayed Hezekiah by making an agreement with the Assyrians, which they celebrated with a feast. They were the “drunkards” of Ephraim –
Woe to the crown (cf. LXX: Ste,fanoj, Stephen) of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim… that are overcome with wine[2]… Isa 28:1 (KJV)
The priest and the prophet erred through intoxicating drink (Isa 28:7). The revolt extended beyond the northerners[3] as the traitors are described as “scornful men, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem”(Isa 28:14). They boasted that they had made an agreement with death and hell (with the Assyrians) and therefore they were untouchable (Isa 28:15). The parallels with first century Judaism are obvious, as the rulers of Jerusalem (Jew and Gentile) agreed to crucify Christ (Acts 4:27). Moreover, the internal situation depicted by Isaiah during the Assyrian crisis is characterised by the factionalism, in-fighting and betrayal that occurred during the Roman crisis and siege of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD.
With Isaiah in mind, we can say that the evil servant in Jesus’ parable would be one who defected to the party of the “drunken” and abused his fellow servants (beats them). The warning in Matthew also recalls the woman who made the inhabitants of the earth, “drunken with the wine of her fornication” (Rev 17:2) and who was “drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rev 17:6). In Matthew 24:30-36 Jesus accused the authorities of being the sons of those who murdered the prophets (v. 31) and warned that they would murder and persecute the prophets, wise men and scribes that he sent to them (v. 34). Stephen levels the same accusation against the Sanhedrin; “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7:52).
I will give the nations for your inheritance
The trial of Stephen marked a turning point in the spread of the gospel. Instead of crushing the movement, the persecution contributed to the growth of the gospel to the Diaspora as Christians fled from Jerusalem. When the chief persecutor experienced his Damascus road conversion and became the apostle to the Gentiles, the growth-rate of Christianity increased exponentially. The trial of Stephen was therefore instrumental in a drastic change of direction:
(55) But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (56) and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; (58) and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. (60) Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. Acts 7:55-60 (NKJV)
Acts 7 juxtaposes the judgement of the earthly council (Sanhedrin) on Stephen with the judgement of the heavenly council on the Sanhedrin. In an allusion to Ps 82:8, Jesus is depicted as standing instead of sitting (cf. Ps 110:1); “Arise, O God, judge the earth; for You shall inherit all nations”. Significantly Psalm 82 is quoted by Jesus in his own dispute with the Sanhedrin (John 10:34-35) and the motif of inheriting all nations is also found in Psalm 2 which was extensively quoted by the apostles and applied to the rulers who had crucified Christ (Acts 4:25-29). Interestingly, Psalm 2 concludes with the following admonition;
(10) Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. (11) Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling. (12) Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Ps 2:10-12 (NKJV)
Saul was one of the judges that required instruction, he almost perished on the way to Damascus but he “kissed the Son” and preached justification by faith (those who put their trust in Him) to the Gentiles. The request by Stephen “not charge them with this sin” was therefore answered by the conversion of Saul—the judgement against the Sanhedrin was that, henceforth, the message would go forth to the Gentiles (Rom 11:12).
Conclusion
We can now attempt to answer the questions that were posed at the beginning of this article. The wise and faithful servant who is appointed to give the household food in due season is Stephen. The “food” that Stephen supplied was both literal (organic food) and Spiritual (the Word of God). He was the perfect example of faith and works operating in unison. The party of the “drunken” are those who are guilty of the blood of the saints (of all ages), those that make covenants with enemies of the gospel in order to save their own skin—the “evil servant” is the one who defects to this party (and who no longer eats and drinks with Christ).
The apostle Paul encountered a deliberate attempt to infiltrate the early church and turn believers back to Judaism. This included forged epistles and character assassination with the situation worsening to such an extent that Paul complained that “all those in Asia have turned away from me”(2 Tim 1:15). Paul may have had a particular individual in mind when he warned the Corinthians about “deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13). In any case, the danger of defecting back to Judaism was very real—“But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit” and “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire” (2 Pet 2:22[4]).
Jesus warned that he would come unexpectedly and “will cut him (the evil servant) in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 24:51). The cutting in two (dicotome,w) is a reference to the land-covenant of Gen 15:10 which went into abeyance in AD 70. Those who had “gnashed their teeth (in anger)” at Stephen (Acts 7:54) would come to gnash their teeth in sorrow and weeping (Matt 24:51) when the nation was judged and scattered.
[1] [Ed AP: They are possibly by now (some twenty years after the sack of Samaria) an established group in the political ruling class].
[2] The drunken are not necessarily intoxicated with wine but possibly just with exercising power (as suggested by the LXX interpretation).
[3] [Ed AP: It is also possible that the reference “drunkards of Ephraim” is sarcastic and used of southerners acting like the Ephraimites before the demise of Samaria].
[4] Peter did not just have Gentile converts in mind as 2 Peter 3 warns of the coming judgement on Judaism.
The Solution