Deacons, Agents of the Apostles (Acts 6:1-7)

Introduction

English Standard Version Chapter 6

Seven Chosen to Serve

6 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.

This week we’re picking up in Acts chapter 6 with Luke’s account of seven men who were uniquely chosen to serve the church alongside the apostles. This particular event is usually seen as the emergence of the church office we call a deacon. Now, Luke doesn’t call these men deacons by name, he doesn’t give them that title, but the Greek word from which we get the English word deacon is used here to describe their intended function, to serve.

Now, this isn’t surprising since most titles (ancient or modern) are typically derived or related to their function, such as a bookkeeper, a CEO (a chief executive officer), a software developer, a delivery driver, etc. Titles are intended to be descriptive of the office’s function. Now, later, in the Apostle Paul’s writings we do find this office more clearly defined, for example, in his opening greeting to the church in Philippi he casually greets “all the saints in Christ Jesus … with overseers and deacons.” In other words, by that time in church history the office of deacon had been more formally recognized within the church. Whereas, here in Luke’s account of the early church he simply chronicles the events that led to the formation of that office, the choosing of seven men to serve the church alongside the Apostles.

Office of deacon born out of circumstances

Now, the formation of this office, of deacon, didn’t come by some type of direct revelation written on tablets of stone to the Apostles ahead of time, but through ordinary, providential means, which is common in Scripture. This office was born out of ordinary circumstances and necessity. The office arose as the result of a complaint, a complaint between two groups of people within the church, a complaint by the Hellenists against the Hebrews. We read there in verse 1,

English Standard Version Chapter 6

6 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.

Now, I want you to consider for a moment the context of this situation. I want you to consider for a moment what series of events have brought us to this point. How did these circumstances come about?

Church grew by leaps and bounds

Well, first, the church had been growing by leaps and bounds since Acts chapter 2 and Peter’s sermon at Pentecost. While it’s difficult to know precisely how many disciples had been added to the church between Acts 2 and Acts 6, there was probably anywhere between 8,000 and 20,000 members by that time. For example, we know that in Acts 1:15 that there about 120 believers gathered in the upper room before Pentecost, and that after Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:41 about 3,000 were added to their number, then in Acts 4:4 after Peter and John had healed a lame beggar at the Temple we’re told that "many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.” And that’s just counting the men. And finally here in Acts 6 it says there in verse 1 that “the disciples were increasing in number” and in verse 7 that “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.” In other words, it would be understatement to say that the church was growing by leaps and bounds.

Daily distributions

In addition to that, if you recall, earlier in Acts chapters 2 and 4 we read that the church had all things in common; that there was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, that no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common, and that it was distributed to each as any had need; (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32, 33-35) So, not only was the church growing rapidly, but the church had undertaken the task of taking care of everyone who was in need, and that they were apparently carrying out daily distributions to the widows.

Now, just the combination of the church’s growth (ranging from 8,000-20,000 members) and their efforts to take care of everyone in need, with only 12 men to lead and serve them all, was a recipe for disaster. There was no way they could handle it all, not without their ministry suffering and people falling through the cracks. The fact is the 12 disciples are a limited resource, even in a small church like ours it can be hard for me to greet everyone who comes in the door before service starts, or chat with everyone before they leave. How many of you know that it’s a bad idea, after a large event, to try and thank everyone by name who helped make it happen? Why is that usually a bad idea? Because you’re going to forget someone! Similarly, this would have been an increasing problem for the disciples as the church grew beyond their ability to manage it.

Sin makes relationships hard

And more than that, the church wasn’t made up of sinless, sanctified people was it? No, there was undoubtedly inherent friction betwen the people. And this is the inevitable result of sinners living together. Anyone who’s ever had a relationship with another human being knows this. This is why friendships are hard, this is why marriages are hard, this is why raising children is hard, this is why relationships with co-workers is hard, and this is why being a part of a local church is hard. And we’re not only prone to sin against each other, but we all seem to have as many opinions as there are people. John Calvin was right when he said, “It’s never easy to reach agreement among people. As their opinions vary, just as their customs vary, so that no two things ever please everyone.” So, you can imagine that it didn’t take long for the church to experience this kind of friction within its ranks, given the circumstances. It’s not surprising that complaints were heard in the camp. In this case, it was the Hellenists raising a complaint against the Hebrews, that their widows were being neglected in the daily distributions.

Disdain for one another

Now, you might not know who Luke’s referring to, “Who are the Hellenists?” Well, if you recall, Barnabas from Acts 4 was a Hellenistic Jew, he was a Levite, but a native of Cyprus, an island in the Mediterranean Sea. He was an ethnic Jew, but he was not living in Judea or any of the other regions in Israel, and he would have spoken Greek as his first language (as a result of Alexander the Great’s conquests in the 4th century BC). Whereas the other group Luke mentions, the Hebrews, or the ethnic Jews who were locals, living in the the region of Judea, would have spoken Hebrew (or Aramaic) as their first language.

Despite both groups being ethnically Jewish, Hellenistic Jews would have been viewed as foreigners by those who lived in Judea. This would have been especially evident since Hebrew wouldn’t have been their first language, and since they would have grown up in a very different culture context than those in Judea. And it’s not hard to imagine how those who were native to Judea would have been tempted to look down upon those Jews from out of town. To look upon them with disdain or contempt, as if they were inferior to them.

I mean just think about how people feel about where they grew up or what family they’re from. If you’ve grown up in Alaska you might feel a sense of pride that you’ve lived here all your life, that you’re a local. I know that in the state of Montana, because it’s been settled for much longer than Alaska, they measure each other’s status by the number of generations their family has lived there. Or if you’re a part of a particular native tribe, how you take great pride knowing that your ancestors have lived here or there for centuries. And maybe you’re prone to think more highly of yourself than you ought to when you compare yourself to another tribal member who no longer even lives on their native lands.

On one hand it’s natural and right to take pride in your family and where you grew up. You should think that your mother is the greatest mother in the world, and that shouldn’t bother me even though I think my mother is the greatest mother in the world. I should take pride in the place I live, that I love, that I have much to be thankful for, but it’s another thing to think you’re inherently superior to others by virtue of the family or place you came from (those circumstance of which you have no control over). This isn’t meant to be a peeing match.

Now, I point this out because this kind of attitude may very well have played a role in the reasons behind the complaint that the Hellenists raised against the Hebrews. It’s not a stretch to think that their could have been some cultural disdain for the Hellenists by the Hebrews. Now, it’s not clear whether the complaint was legitimate or not, or if the complaint was legitimate and was simply the result of certain people falling through the cracks. We don’t know for sure, but either way grumbling had arisen within the church and it was causing division.

The danger of dissension

Now, up to this point, the church had already endured persecution, and it had already endured the flagrant sin of Ananias and Saphira, but now it would have to endure the murmuring and grumbling from within. Could it endure dissension or disunity within the church? Sometimes it can be much easier for the church to endure persecution, because persecution often results in emboldening the church and uniting the church against its enemy, in fact, persecution often causes the church to grow. And it’s often easier to deal with flagrant, public sins than it is with more subtle and evasive sins within the church. Flagrant and public sin sin right in front of you, it’s out in the open, everyone can see it, it doesn’t fly under the radar, but the sin that causes murmuring and grumbling can be far more difficult to combat. The question here is would picky, petty, and unhappy people destroy the church? Would petty pride, discontentment, secret power struggles, and jealousy destroy the church?

Striving for unity

And the danger here is important for us to recognize in order to avoid it ourselves. We too must take care not to allow the unity of our own local church to be put into jeopardy as a result of situations like this. We are finite creatures who are prone to sin, we’re bound to step on one another's toes, we will step on one another’s toes, we will sin against one another, it’s inevitable, and we all come from different cultural backgrounds and contexts that make our relationships inherently difficult, therefore we should make a point to strive for unity, even when difficult or painful circumstances might tend toward disunity, we must guard against grumbling against one another, and to guard against sinning against one another, and that when we do, to be ready to go to our brother immediately with of a desire to be reconciled. Otherwise, we will inevitably give Satan a foothold within the church. This is why the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians 4:3 to “bear with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Unity isn’t something that comes easily to us, we must (as some translations put it) strive for unity. And this doesn’t mean that we always agree on everything or see eye to eye on everything, but that we will not allow sin or our differences to separate us. Unity must be maintained, just as it must be in any relationship.

The Apostles need help

So, how do the 12 Apostles respond to this situation? What’s their solution? Well, let’s pickup there in verse 2,

English Standard Version Chapter 6

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.”

They recognized that they needed help. And more importantly, they realized that if they didn’t get help their ministry was going to suffer. They tell the congregation that “it’s not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables,” therefore choose from among yourselves seven men we can appoint for this task. In other words, we need other men who can oversee this side of the ministry, we need men who can oversee the practical needs of the congregation, so that our responsibility to preach the word of God doesn’t suffer.

The priority of preaching

Now, I think when some of us hear them say, “it’s not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables,” we think they’re implying that serving tables is beneath them, but this isn’t at all what’s meant here. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been serving tables in the first place or appointed others to this task at all! But they knew that their responsibility to preach the word of God took priority, and that they couldn’t allow this situation to interfere with it. We should not conclude that because a thing takes priority over another thing that the other thing has no priority at all, or that it is unimportant, but having priorities does often require us to make difficult decisions when faced with a choice between one thing or another.

Now, the other reason this text grates against some of us is because we wrongly believe that the physical, temporal needs of people are more important than their spiritual needs. This is the error of many churches today, many of which are no longer churches at all, but only in name. They teach a social gospel and have turned the church into a mere charity that seeks to help others with their physical, temporal needs, without attending to their spiritual needs.

You see, when you prioritize the temporal needs of people over their spiritual needs, you will eventually forsake their spiritual needs altogether, whereas those churches who prioritize the spiritual needs of the people will also, and inevitably, take care of their physical, temporal needs. This is because our concern for one’s spiritual needs is the grounds of our concern for a person’s physical needs. In other words, it’s the word of God, which is spiritual, that teaches you and I to care for the widow, the orphan, and the poor. Without the word of God we will fail to know how or that we should care at all for the needs of our neighbor.

I also want to take a minute to highlight the priority of preaching. I have been to churches where pastors are not given the liberty to prioritize teaching and preaching, where the church has placed a multitude of other responsibilities and demands upon them, effectively hindering their ability to prioritize their primary calling and responsibility to teach the congregation. They’re tasked with various administrative duties, such as maintaining the church website, facility maintenance, event planning, providing extensive amounts of counseling, etc. And while pastors or elders are not forbidden from engaging in these activities a congregation must ensure that their elders, particularly those who labor in teaching and preaching, are not weighed down with tasks and responsibilities that might distract them from their primary responsibilities.

Now, sadly, there are also pastors who actively neglect this responsibility in favor of other tasks, for various reasons. I’ve been a part of churches with well meaning pastors who prioritize serving the physical needs of the people over and against the preaching of the word of God, and as a result their preaching suffers and so do the people. These men forsake their duty and responsibilities. So, if you every find yourself in that situation, you need to find a different church where the preaching of God’s word is prioritized by its elders, just as it was by the Apostles here in Acts 6. And when the demands of the local church become such that the preaching and teaching suffers then they must seek to ordain deacons in order that the ministry of the word not suffer.

Qualified men

Furthermore, these men must meet certain qualifications. Notice, first, that the Apostles didn’t solicit help from outside the church, or just anyone inside the church. They tell the congregation to “pick out from among [themselves] seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom [they] will appoint to this duty.” (Acts 6:3) Later, the Apostle Paul, writing to Timothy, outlines similar qualifications for deacons. Therefore, if you would, turn with me to 1 Timothy 3:8-13,

English Standard Version Chapter 3

Qualifications for Deacons

8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Now, if you read the qualifications for elders (called overseers here) in the verses that come before, you’ll notice that the qualifications for deacons parallel the qualifications for elders, with one exception, elders much be “able to teach”. This is one of the key distinctions between elders and deacons. This doesn’t mean deacons aren’t capable of teaching, but that it’s not a requirement of the office since it isn’t a function of that office. For example, we’ll see later in Acts 6 that Stephen is certainly capable of teaching and preaching, but this isn’t the intended role or necessary function of a deacon within the church. Which coincides with the Apostle’s reasoning back in Acts 6 that they have a responsibility to teach the word of God.

Qualifications of character

It’s also important to notice that these qualification for deacons are primarily related to the person’s character. They must be dignified, worthy of honor and respect, they must not be double-tongued, that is, not hypocritical or two-faced, they must not be addicted to too much wine, in other words they can’t be slaves to alcohol or drunkards, not that they’re forbidden from drinking wine, but that they must not be slaves to it, they must not be greedy, because as you can imagine this would be a problem if you intend to put them in charge of the donations given to the church and distributing donations to those in need, it would be like putting Judas in charge of the money bag who secretly helped himself to what was in it - bad idea.

They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience, in other words, their profession of faith must match their personal life, that they live with integrity and a clear conscience. They must also be tested, in other words, they should have a history that confirms their qualifications. I’m reminded of how Roger recently made sure to test the engine of his fishing boat after rebuilding it, in order to give him some confidence that it’ll run as expected before the next fishing season. They must also be a husband of one wife and manage their households well, because how well you run your household will indicate how well you will do at being a deacon of the church. And interestingly, we’re also told that a deacon’s wife must likewise share these qualifications. We’re not explicitly told why, but this is likely due to the role and function of a deacon, to serve. That the nature of their role and function will often result in their wife’s involvement, and thereby require her to be qualified to assist him.

Qualifications of competence

You may have also noticed that back in Acts 6:3 that one of the qualifications for those seven men was that they were “full of the Spirit and of wisdom”. Now, if you recall, the purpose of the church being given the Spirit was for the empowerment of ministry, the same purpose for which the Spirit was given to certain OT saints. In this particular case, a deacon especially needed wisdom. As we all know, interacting with people can be challenging, and situations like that of the Hellenists and Hebrews was undoubtedly a delicate situation, and would require wisdom on the part of the deacons who would handle it.

Qualified men

Now, it’s also worth mentioning here that Scripture seems to clearly indicate that deacons must be qualified men. That just as the office of elder or overseer is reserved for qualified men, so also is the office of deacon. Not just any men, but qualified men. This doesn’t mean that women are unimportant, but only that God had ordered the world, the family, and his church in a certain way. Just as he’s given elders and deacons different roles and responsibilities, so he’s given men and women different roles and responsibilities. For example, the elders are also called overseers because they’re intended to lead and rule the church, while the deacons are intended to serve at the direction of the elders.

Deacons agents of the elders

In fact, and likely the most helpful way to understand the role of a deacon is that they’re intended to be agents of the elders. The deacons are meant to be an extension of a church’s elders to the people, handling the requests and needs of the people directly on behalf of the elders. Just as the seven men here in Acts 6 were intended to relieve the apostles from directly handling the affairs of the daily distribution, but this didn’t mean the apostles became uninvolved or disconnected from those affairs, but simply that the deacons were intended to alleviate the burden of serving the people’s needs directly.

This distinction between elders and deacons is important to understand, because there are many churches (especially certain baptist churches) who function quite differently, treating deacons as if they were elders who lead and rule the church, and who are in charge of hiring a single pastor for preaching and teaching, and who is under the authority of the deacons. Whereas, Scripture teaches us that a pastor is also described as an elder and an overseer, who not only preaches and teaches but rules the affairs of the church alongside other pastors or elders, while the deacons are charged with serving the church as agents of those elders.

For example, how the donations given to a local church are utilized is at the elder’s discretion. And at some point the deacons might bring it to the elder’s attention that a certain family, widow, or orphan is in need, and therefore they decide that the proceeds of the people, which were given to the church, should be used to meet that particular need. However, they may not have the time to meet that need themselves directly, therefore they employ the deacons of the church as their agents to carry out this task. This is what was happing in Acts 6 on a larger scale. This is how the apostles addressed the situation, by asking the congregation to choose seven qualified men from amongst themselves for them to appoint to this duty.

Greek speaking deacons

Now, I also want you to notice that the apostles asked for the congregation’s involvement when selecting these men. While the elders were clearly responsible for whether these men were appointed or not, their desire was for the congregation to pick out from among themselves candidates, and I suspect this was intended to foster unity and to garner widespread trust in the men by the people, because these men would be serving the congregation directly, and in this particular case, they were tasked with handling a very delicate situation.

Now, what happens next is quite interesting, but probably overlooked by most readers. We pickup there in verse 5,

English Standard Version Chapter 6

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.

What’s interesting are the names of these men. Now, these aren’t names that most of us are familiar with, most of us aren’t naming our children Prochorus or Nicanor, but what’s interesting about these names is that they’re all Greek names. Now, how is this significant? Well, that means the men that the congregation chose were all likely Hellenistic Jews, not natives of Judea. Now, it’s possible that some of them could have still been natives to Judea, but it’s likely that most, if not all of these men, were Hellenistic Jews.

Which seems to indicate an extraordinary show of generosity, and a desire by the Hebrews (those native of Judea) for reconciliation. You see, because they were likely the majority, they could have nominated their own people to control the process, but instead, the Hebrew majority entrusted the care of all the widows (including their own) to men from the very group that had raised the complaint. If this is the case, they had purposefully avoided any appearance of favoritism or bias by selecting these men, a beautiful act of humility and unity. And what an example to emulate in our own churches.

Conclusion

And as a result, Luke write again there in verse 7 that,

English Standard Version Chapter 6

7 ... 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.

It’s hard not to think that Luke wrote this in response to the selection of these seven men, both to indicate that the apostles were able to continue to teach the word of God (unincumbered), and to signal that this incredible show of generosity and reconciliation within the church had served to adorn the Gospel.

Prayer