5.

The Seven are chosen and commissioned (6:1–7)

The devil’s next attack was the cleverest of the three. Having failed
to overcome the church by either persecution or corruption, he now
tried distraction. If he could preoccupy the apostles with social
administration, which though essential was not their calling, they
would neglect their God-given responsibilities to pray and to
preach, and so leave the church without any defence against false
doctrine.
a. The problem (6:1)
The situation is clear. On the one hand, in those days … the number
of the disciples was increasing. On the other, the excitement of
church growth was tempered by a regrettable goggysmos, a
‘complaint … expressed in murmuring’ (BAGD). The cognate
verb is used in LXX to denote the ‘murmuring’ of the Israelites
against Moses,31 and evidently the Jerusalem church members
were murmuring against the apostles, who received the relief
money (4:35, 37) and were therefore expected to distribute it
equitably. But such grumbling is inappropriate in Christians.32
The complaint concerned the welfare of the widows, whose cause
God had promised in the Old Testament to defend.33 Assuming
that they were unable to earn their own living and had no relatives
to support them,34 the church had accepted the responsibility, and
a daily distribution of food was made to them. But there were two
groups in the Jerusalem church, one called Hellēnistai and the other
Hebraioi, and the former complained against the latter because
their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of
food (1). It is not suggested that the oversight was deliberate (‘the
Hebrew widows were being given preferential treatment’, JBP);
more probably the cause was poor administration or supervision.
What exactly was the identity of these two groups? It has usually
been supposed that they were distinguished from each other by a
mixture of geography and language.
That is, the Hellēnistai came from the diaspora, had settled in
Palestine and spoke Greek, while the Hebraioi were natives of
Palestine and spoke Aramaic. This is an inadequate explanation,
however. Since Paul called himself Hebraios,35 in spite of the fact
that he came from Tarsus and spoke Greek, the distinction must go
beyond origin and language to culture. In this case the Hellēnistai
not only spoke Greek but thought and behaved like Greeks, while
the Hebraioi not only spoke Aramaic but were deeply immersed in
Hebrew culture. This being so, Grecian Jews is a good rendering,
while the Aramaic-speaking community is not, since it refers to
language only and not culture. ‘What is needed here’, writes
Richard Longenecker, ‘is some such translation as “Grecian Jews”
and “Hebraic Jews”.’36 There had always, of course, been rivalry
between these groups in Jewish culture; the tragedy is that it was
perpetuated within the new community of Jesus who by his death
had abolished such distinctions.37
The issue was more, however, than one of cultural tension. The
apostles discerned a deeper problem, namely that social
administration (both organizing the distribution and settling the
complaint) was threatening to occupy all their time and so inhibit
them from the work which Christ had specifically entrusted to
them, namely preaching and teaching.
b. The solution (6:2–6)
The Twelve did not impose a solution on the church, however, but
gathered all the disciples together in order to share the problem
with them. They said, ‘ It would not be right for us to neglect the
ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables’ (2).
There is no hint whatever that the apostles regarded social work as
inferior to pastoral work, or beneath their dignity. It was entirely a
question of calling. They had no liberty to be distracted from their
own priority task. So they made a proposal to the church: ‘
Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be
full of the Spirit and wisdom [JBP, “both practical and spiritually-
minded”]. We will turn this responsibility over to them (3) and will
give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word’ (4). It is
noteworthy that now the Twelve have added prayer to preaching
(probably meaning public as well as private intercession) in
specifying the essence of the apostles’ ministry. They form a
natural couple, since the ministry of the word, without prayer that
the Spirit will water the seed, is unlikely to bear fruit. This
delegation of social welfare to the Seven is commonly thought to
have been the origin of the diaconate. It may be so, for the language
of diakonia is used in verses 1 and 2, as we shall see later.
Nevertheless, the Seven are not actually called diakonoi.38
The church saw the point of the apostles’ plan: This proposal
pleased the whole group. So they put it into effect. They chose
Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip,
Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas from Antioch,
a convert (NEB, ‘a former convert’) to Judaism (5), i.e. a proselyte.
It has been pointed out that all seven had Greek names. They may
all, therefore, have been Hellēnistai, deliberately chosen to satisfy
this group who were complaining. But this is speculative. It seems
more likely a priori that ‘some of both classes of Jews were elected,
the only fair and proper course’.39 Whether they were deacons or
not, and whether they were Hellēnistai or not, the church presented
these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them
(6), thus commissioning and authorizing them to exercise this
ministry.
c. The principle
A vital principle is illustrated in this incident, which is of urgent
importance to the church today. It is that God calls all his people to
ministry, that he calls different people to different ministries, and
that those called to ‘prayer and the ministry of the word’ must on
no account allow themselves to be distracted from their priorities.
It is surely deliberate that the work of the Twelve and the work of
the Seven are alike called diakonia (1, 4), ‘ministry’ or ‘service’.
The former is ‘the ministry of the word’ (4) or pastoral work, the
latter ‘the ministry of tables’ (2) or social work.
Neither ministry is superior to the other. On the contrary, both are
Christian ministries, that is, ways of serving God and his people.
Both require spiritual people, ‘full of the Spirit’, to exercise them.
And both can be full-time Christian ministries.
The only difference between them lies in the form the ministry
takes, requiring different gifts and different callings.
We do a great disservice to the church whenever we refer to the
pastorate as ‘the ministry’, for example when we speak of
ordination in terms of ‘entering the ministry’. This use of the
definite article implies that the ordained pastorate is the only
ministry there is. But diakonia is a generic word for service; it lacks
specificity until a descriptive adjective is added, whether ‘pastoral’,
‘social’, ‘political’, ‘medical’ or another. All Christians without
exception, being followers of him who came ‘not to be served but
to serve’, are themselves called to ministry, indeed to give their
lives in ministry. But the expression ‘full-time Christian ministry’
is not to be restricted to church work and missionary service; it can
also be exercised in government, the media, the professions,
business, industry and the home. We need to recover this vision of
the wide diversity of ministries to which God calls his people.
In particular, it is vital for the health and growth of the church that
pastors and people in the local congregation learn this lesson. True,
pastors are not apostles, for the apostles were given authority to
formulate and teach the gospel, while pastors are responsible to
expound the message which the apostles have bequeathed to us in
the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is a real ‘ministry of the word’
to which pastors are called to dedicate their life. The apostles were
not too busy for ministry, but preoccupied with the wrong ministry.
So are many pastors. Instead of concentrating on the ministry of
the word (which will include preaching to the congregation,
counselling individuals and training groups), they become
overwhelmed with administration. Sometimes it is the pastor’s
fault (he wants to keep all the reins in his own hands), and
sometimes the people’s (they want him to be a general factotum).
In either case the consequences are disastrous. The standards of
preaching and teaching decline, since the pastor has little time to
study or pray. And the lay people do not exercise their God-given
roles, since the pastor does everything himself. For both reasons
the congregation is inhibited from growing into maturity in Christ.
What is needed is the basic, biblical recognition that God calls
different men and women to different ministries. Then the people
will ensure that their pastor is set free from unnecessary
administration, in order to give himself to the ministry of the word,
and the pastor will ensure that the people discover their gifts and
develop ministries appropriate to them.
d. The result (6:7)
As a direct result of the action of the apostles in delegating the
social work, in order to concentrate on their pastoral priority, the
word of God spread (7a). But of course! The word cannot spread
when the ministry of the word is neglected. Conversely, when
pastors devote themselves to the word, it spreads. Then, as a further
result, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and
(a remarkable development) a large number of priests became
obedient to the faith (7b). The two verbs ‘spread’ and ‘increased’
are in the imperfect tense, indicating that both the spread of the
word and the growth of the church were continuous. This verse is
the first of six summaries of growth, with which Luke intersperses
his narrative. They come at crucial points in his unfolding story:
after the apostles’ decision to give their attention to prayer and
preaching (6:7);40 after the dramatic conversion of Saul of Tarsus
(9:31); after the equally wonderful conversion of the first Gentile,
Cornelius, followed by the overthrow of Herod Agrippa I (12:24);
after Paul’s first missionary journey and the Jerusalem Council
(16:5); after the second and third missionary journeys (19:20); and
at the end of the book after Paul’s arrival in Rome, where he
preached ‘boldly and without hindrance’ (28:30–31). In each of
these verses we read either that the word was spreading or that the
church was growing or both. God was at work; neither humans nor
demons could stand in his way.
We have now seen the three tactics which the devil employed in
his overall strategy to destroy the church. First, he tried through the
Jewish authorities to suppress it by force; secondly through the
married couple Ananias and Sapphira to corrupt it by hypocrisy;
and thirdly through some squabbling widows to distract its
leadership from prayer and preaching, and so expose it to error and
evil. If he had succeeded in any of these attempts, the new
community of Jesus would have been annihilated in its infancy. But
the apostles were sufficiently alert to detect ‘the devil’s
schemes’.41 We need their spiritual discernment today to
recognize the activity of both the Holy Spirit and the evil spirit ( cf.
5:3). We also need their faith in the strong name of Jesus, by whose
authority alone the powers of darkness can be overthrown.