The Acts, Part 12

Selection and Purpose of Deacons

Acts 6:1–7 ESV

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. 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.” 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. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. 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.

6:1 Luke introduced the new section with a rather vague “in those days.” Luke generally was not concerned with giving precise chronological references, but from later data in Acts it may be concluded that this incident took place in the early to midthirties, perhaps five years or so after Pentecost.6 The Jerusalem Christian community had witnessed considerable growth; and as is so often the case with rapid increase, administrative problems developed. The particular difficulty involved a complaint from the Greek-speaking Christians against the native Aramaic-speaking Christians that their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food (literally, “the daily ministry”). We may assume that at this point the Christian community consisted exclusively of Jews. The only exceptions would be the “proselytes,” like Nicolas (v. 5), who were Gentiles who had converted to Judaism. The Gentile mission as such had not yet begun. Yet even though it could be considered a purely Jewish Christian community, the Jerusalem church was not fully homogeneous, as this mention of the “Hellenists” and Aramaic-speakers indicates.7 The Hellenists (“Grecian Jews,” NIV) were more than likely Jews who had come from the Jewish dispersion and settled in Jerusalem. Their language and probably many of their ways were Greek. They had their own synagogues (cf. v. 9), and funerary inscriptions excavated in Jerusalem attest to their extensive presence there. As so often with ethnic groups, they tended to associate with those who shared their language and cultural background. As the church increased and came to include more and more of these “Hellenist” converts, it is only natural that they would have formed close associations with one another, perhaps even meeting in home fellowships together. There is no reason to picture a breach or separation in the total Christian community—only the sort of “distancing” created by natural linguistic and cultural differences.8 Where the “distancing” manifested itself was in the very practical matter of the community’s charity. The Hellenist widows were being overlooked—certainly not deliberately neglected but inadvertently left out. There may have been a considerable number of such widows. Dorcas (9:39) probably was one of them, and 1 Tim 5 attests to the large numbers of them in the Pauline congregations.

In Jewish society widows were particularly needy and dependent, and the Old Testament singles them out along with orphans as the primary objects of charitable deeds.9 The Hellenist widows may have been a particularly sizable group. Diaspora Jews often moved to Jerusalem in their twilight years to die in the holy city. When the men died, their widows were left far from their former home and family to care for them and were thus particularly in need of charity.10 Many of them may have been attracted to the Christian community precisely because of its concern for the material needs of its members.

The Christian concern that “there be no needy among them” has already been referred to in Acts (2:44f.; 4:32, 34f.). The administration of community charity seems to have been in the hands of the apostles (4:35). As the church grew, they must have entrusted distribution to others, whom this text would indicate came primarily from the Aramaic-speaking constituency. Language barriers being what they are, it is easy to picture how some of the Greek-speaking widows were overlooked. In its charity the church may have followed somewhat the precedents already set in contemporary Judaism, which had a double system of distribution to the needy. The Jews had a weekly dole for resident needy, called the quppah. It was given out every Friday and consisted of enough money for fourteen meals. There was also a daily distribution, known as the tamhuy.11 It was for nonresidents and transients and consisted of food and drink, which were delivered from house to house where known needy were dwelling. The Christian practice seems to have embraced elements of both Jewish systems. Like the tamhuy it was daily, and like the quppah it was for the resident membership.

6:2 To solve the problem, the Twelve gathered all the disciples together. Even though the Hellenists had the main grievance, the problem involved the entire congregation; and the apostles wanted total participation in its resolution. This is not a bad precedent, particularly in matters where money is involved. As the spiritual leaders of the congregation and the ultimate administrators of the community funds, the apostles’ duty was to solve the problem. This is what is meant by their statement in v. 2 about it not being right for them to neglect God’s word to wait on tables. To oversee the distribution to the Hellenist widows would distract them from their primary responsibility of witness. The phrase “it would not be right” really means “not pleasing in God’s eyes.” Modern ministers sometimes misuse this statement as a biblical warrant for refusal to do the mundane administrative tasks in the church.

In context this passage deals with the apostles and their unique role. They alone in all of Christian history were the witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Their witness was unique, unrepeatable, and absolutely foundational for the Christian movement. Surely it was not fitting for anything to limit their bearing their witness. But what did they mean by “wait on tables”? Does the phrase permit a closer definition of the church’s charitable procedure? Actually, it is somewhat ambiguous. The word “table” was characteristically used as a metaphor for a meal or for a table from which money was distributed.12 Either practice could have been followed by the church, just as both are found in the tamhuy (food) and quppah (money) of Judaism.

6:3–4 As the leaders of the community, the apostles proposed that the members choose seven men from among them to administer the charity to the Hellenist widows. The context suggests that the seven men were to be Hellenists. The system had broken down with their group, and they would know better who the needy widows were and be better able to communicate with them. The apostles, however, laid down basic qualifications which the seven had to meet. First, they were to be “full of the Spirit,” i.e., they were to have manifested a special degree of allowing the Spirit to work in them. Then they were to be known for their “wisdom,” probably referring to the kind of practical know-how necessary for the proper management of the charitable funds. One would assume that the seven would take over the administration of the charity among the Hellenist Christians and the apostles would continue to do so among the others. Verse 4 concludes the apostolic proposal. By selecting the seven, the apostles were free to carry out their primary responsibilities of preaching and bearing witness to Christ.

-6:5 The solution proposed by the apostles was pleasing to the whole group, which made its selection. It is important to note that the congregation made the selection. The apostles assumed the leadership in making the proposal, but they left final approval of the plan and selection of the seven to congregational decision. That they were all Hellenists is likely, given the nature of the problem and the fact that all seven names listed in v. 5 are Greek. Stephen was named first. He met the qualifications (v. 3), being full of faith and the Holy Spirit. That Luke listed him first is no accident. He would be the primary character in the following narrative (6:8–8:4).

Next came Philip. He too would be a major figure in the story of the expanding Christian witness (8:5–40).13 The other five play no further role in Acts, and we have no reliable additional information on any of them. Early tradition connects Procorus with the apostle John, maintaining that he was John’s amanuensis in writing the Fourth Gospel, that he later became the bishop of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and that ultimately he was martyred in Antioch. We know nothing further on Nicanor, Timon, and Parmenas. Interestingly, Luke gave the additional note on Nicolas that he was a proselyte from Antioch. Some scholars feel he may have been Luke’s primary source of information about the Hellenists, who later seem to have centered around Antioch (11:19–21). The later Gnostic sect of Nicolaitans seems to have borrowed his name to gain authority for their teaching, but there is no evidence that he himself had any connection with them.14

6:6 The selection of the seven is followed by their installation. The congregation chose them and presented them to the apostles. The apostles confirmed the congregational decision by laying their hands on them.15 It is best not to read our current practices of ordination back into the text of Acts with regard to this gesture of hand-laying. In the Old Testament the laying on of hands deals with the transfer of some personal characteristic or responsibility from one person to another, as from Moses to Joshua (Num 27:16–23).16 The gesture is used in several ways in Acts: in healings (9:17), the gift of the Spirit (9:17; 8:18), and in commissioning to a task (6:6; 13:3). Even in the commissionings the emphasis is not so much on appointment to an office as to designation for a task.17 Often the present passage is seen to be the initiation of the diaconate. The word “deacon” (diakonos) never occurs in the passage. The word “ministry” (diakonia) does occur several times, but it is applied to both the ministry of the daily distribution (v. 2) and the ministry of the word, the apostolic witness (v. 4). In fact, the word “deacon” never occurs in Acts. The office generally referred to is “elder” (Acts 11:30; 14:23, et passim).18 If one is inclined nevertheless to see the diaconate in this passage, that person should take a cue from Stephen and Philip. In the rest of Acts, nothing is made of their administrative duties. What one finds them doing is bearing their witness, even to martyrdom.

(4) Summary and Transition (6:7)

7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

6:7 With the problem of the Hellenist widows solved, the community was once more at peace. The apostles were freed for their witness, and the word of God spread/grew. The strangeness of expression in describing the word as growing has often been noted. Perhaps the parable of the sower lies in the background.19 Here “the word of God” points to the proclaimed word as it was preached in wider and wider areas. The “word” grows when it is faithfully proclaimed and falls on fertile soil. In this instance it grew on unexpected soil—among the Jewish priests. There were many poor priests in Palestine, perhaps as many as 8,000.20 They received little support from the temple cult, had to support themselves primarily with their own hands, and had little in common with the Sadducean priestly aristocracy. From their ranks came these Christian converts. Luke’s mentioning them at this point in the narrative may be significant. The next event would be Stephen’s arrest and his stirring critique of the temple. Some of these priestly “insiders” may have shared the same viewpoint and longed for a purer worship of God.

Stephen Seized

Acts 6:8–15 ESV

8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. 10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” 15 And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

6:8–10 Luke began by telling us that Stephen was “full of God’s grace and power.” We have been well prepared for this. As one of the seven he met the qualification of being filled with the Spirit and wisdom (v. 3) and was personally described as full of faith and the Holy Spirit (v. 5). Faith, wisdom, grace, power, and above all the presence of the Spirit were the personal qualities that equipped him for the ultimate witness he would soon bear. The Spirit and power are closely linked and led him to perform signs and wonders among the people. He was the first other than the apostles to be described as working miracles. He quite naturally witnessed in the synagogue of his fellow Greek-speaking Jews.21 Luke named it the Synagogue of the Freedmen, which indicates that many of its members formerly may have been slaves or were the descendants of former slaves. Its membership included Jews from the north African and Asian Diaspora. There is ample literary and inscriptional evidence for Cyrenian Jews settling in Jerusalem, and the rabbinic writings mention an Alexandrian synagogue in Jerusalem.22 Paul himself was a Cilician Jew who had come to live in Jerusalem, and it was Asian Jews who later would accuse him of having violated the temple (Acts 21:27f.). In fact, Paul himself may have attended this synagogue, and it may be there where he debated his fellow Greek-speaking Jews after becoming a Christian (Acts 9:29). In any event, they were unable to refute Stephen. He was too filled with the Spirit and wisdom (cf. v. 3).

6:11–12 Unable to resist Stephen’s persuasive power and his logic, the Hellenist Jews resorted to underhanded methods. They “hatched a frame-up.” The Greek word (hypoballō) is really stronger than the NIV’s “secretly persuaded,” usually implying that one “puts someone else up to” something, giving them the words to say. In this case the words were to the effect that Stephen had spoken blasphemy against Moses and against God. This charge reappeared in slightly different terms when Stephen was taken before the Sanhedrin. This time the opposition was more formidable. The scandalous charges were spread all over town—Stephen, the blasphemer. This time the populace was moved against Stephen, the first time in Acts they came into active opposition against the Christians. Likewise, the elders of Jerusalem and the scribes became alarmed. The former represented the Sadducees, the latter the Pharisees. Both had their representatives on the Sanhedrin. The stage was set. Stephen was arrested and taken to the Sanhedrin.

It may come as something of a surprise that the Diaspora Jews were so incensed at Stephen. As Hellenistic Jews, would they not have been more tolerant, more receptive of his new ideas, less nationalistic? No, the evidence is that exactly the opposite was the case. The Jews who came from the Diaspora were usually highly nationalistic Jews, having left their homes in the dispersion to migrate to the holy city, the temple city. They were highly zealous for both law and temple. B. Reicke, with considerable justification, labels them “Zionists.”24 They would not at all have been open to Stephen’s prophetic critique of their religion and worship. They were wrong in their charge of blasphemy, but blind zealotism is incapable of taking even the most constructive critique.

6:13–14 Before the Sanhedrin the plotters presented the charges against Stephen. He is described as speaking “against this holy place” and “against the law.” These are really the same as the original charges of blasphemy against Moses and against God made in v. 11. Moses was identified in their minds with the receipt of the law at Sinai and its transmission in the Pentateuch. To speak against Moses was thus to attack the law itself. “This holy place” was the temple, which was considered by contemporary Jews as the dwelling place of God, containing his very presence in the holy of holies. To attack the temple was seen as a direct affront to God himself. The charges are given a third time in v. 14, this time in a more polemical form: Stephen was accused of saying that Jesus would destroy the temple and change the customs handed down by Moses. This time the charges were more threatening, not just blasphemy but destruction of the temple, alteration of the law. In the background to v. 14 stands the charge of blasphemy directed against Jesus at his own trial when he was accused of threatening to destroy the temple (Mark 14:57–58). Luke did not include that tradition in the narrative of Jesus’ trial in his Gospel, but its inclusion here is highly significant. It put Jesus back on trial once again.25 Stephen had only been faithful in his witness to the teaching of Jesus. To reject the testimony of Stephen was ultimately to reject Jesus. That is what his trial was all about. The violent rejection of Stephen represented a rejection of Jesus the Messiah. Ultimately it was not Stephen but the Sanhedrin on trial that day.

6:15–7:1 All attention then turned to Stephen to see how he would respond to the charges. What they saw was a visage transfigured, a face like that of an angel.26 It is a picture of the martyr inspired by the heavenly vision, filled with the Spirit and empowered for fearless testimony before his accusers.