Session 2.13: January 5, 2024

Scripture Reading: Acts 6:1-7

1 Now in those days, when the disciples were growing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the twelve called the whole group of the disciples together and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to wait on tables. 3 But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 The proposal pleased the entire group, so they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a Gentile convert to Judaism from Antioch. 6 They stood these men before the apostles, who prayed and placed their hands on them. 7 The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.

Major Themes

Today we read a short text, but I want to slow down for two reasons. First, this text introduces an important new group of people who serve as a bridge on the journey to sharing the gospel with all the world. Second, this text is often described as the appointment of the church’s first seven deacons. I want to take that idea, whether accurate or not, as a springboard to discuss church government more broadly. I think this is an important topic as new or prospective Christians assess which church they would like to visit or join.

Hebrews and Hellenists

Chapter 6 broadens the stage of the church’s story. Up to this point, the narrative has centered exclusively on Israeli Jews—Jews who lived in Israel, spoke the Israeli language (which was no longer Hebrew but Aramaic), and followed the Israeli customs. These are the “native Hebraic Jews,” as the NET translation puts it, or, literally, “Hebrews.”

In chapter 6, we meet a different kind of Jew—the “Greek-speaking Jew”—or, literally, the “Hellenist.” The NET translation avoids using that word not because it is inaccurate but because “this descriptive term is largely unknown to the modern English reader.”

However, the phrase “Greek-speaking Jew” can be misleading. Taken too literally, one may conclude that the key difference, perhaps the only difference, between the two Jewish groups is their first language. The translators seem to share my concern since they add a few explanatory notes. First, they point out that, “The translation ‘Greek-speaking Jews’ attempts to convey something of who these were, but it was more than a matter of language spoken; it involved a degree of adoption of Greek culture as well.” They add, “The Greek-speaking Jews were the Hellenists, Jews who to a greater or lesser extent had adopted Greek thought, customs, and lifestyle, as well as the Greek language. The city of Alexandria in Egypt was a focal point for them, but they were scattered throughout the Roman Empire.”

Many earlier scholars focused on a supposed theological divide between Hebrews and Hellenists. The claim was that Hellenists had lesser regard for or perhaps even opposed the temple and temple worship. The trend today, as evidenced by the NET notes, is to view the groups as linguistically and to some extent culturally distinct. The Hebrews spoke primarily Aramaic and in varying measures Greek; the Hellenists were primarily Greek speakers. Hellenists were probably Diaspora immigrants or their descendants in Jerusalem. (The term Diaspora refers to the dispersion of the Jewish people beyond Israel.)

Notice that the term Hellenist does not mean “Gentile.” For context, the verb “hellenize” was often used in contrast to “barbarize” and hence meant speaking correct Greek. Greeks spread their language and culture together. Consequently, the title Hellenist probably included a certain Greek disposition, education, and support for Greek culture.

However, we must also recall that Jews in the Diaspora—that is, in the Greek and Roman world—did not abandon their Jewish customs. So, we should not conclude that Hellenists adopted all Greek customs and beliefs, particularly those opposed to Judaism. Moreover, Jews who cared enough to relocate to their homeland probably had high regard for Jewish customs. (Archaeological evidence suggests that many Diaspora Jews did settle in Jerusalem, perhaps to spend their final days there.)

Racism?

The interaction of two ethnic groups predictably leads to problems. I use the term ethnicity not to denote race—both groups were made up of Jews—but, as Oxford Dictionary puts it, to denote groups “made up of people who share a common cultural background.”

The neglect of the Hellenist widows leads to charges of favoritism or, at worst, discrimination. This is the first reported internal schism in the church (as long as one does not count the episode with Ananias and Sapphira, which was more of an infiltration than an internal schism).

In the ancient world—Israel included—widows were truly marginalized. They were often unable to inherit property, purchase land, or work outside the home. In other words, the system left them destitute, which also left them dependent on the resources of relatives and charity. Due to war, the number of widows was great (by one study, a third of all women in the Roman empire). Their need could overwhelm a community.

Notice that the problem between Hebrews and Hellenists is prefaced with the good news that “the disciples were growing in numbers.” Growth presents challenges; the church is not an exception to the rule. And, if the last 20 years of multiculturalism in the West have taught us anything, cross-cultural growth is even more challenging. (This is only an observation, not an argument that the church should not expand cross-culturally.)

The apostles were among the Hebrews and supervised the distribution of food (4:35). So, the widows’ complaint was aimed not only at the church in general but, at least by implication, at the apostles in particular. Should we assume ill will on the part of the apostles? Not really. Given the rapid spread of their fame in the city and explosive rise in church membership, surely they were unable to offer detailed attention to the ministry of charity. Their very success pressed them beyond their abilities.

But, how could the apostles overlook the Hellenist widows unintentionally? Although unlikely, food for the poor may have been distributed through a public dole. (In the Roman world, the grain dole was the system by which the government provided subsidized or free grain to the Roman population. Much like welfare today, eligible citizens would be entered into a registry. Then they would receive grain stored by the government.) Immigrants might have had less knowledge of and access to the dole. However, the more likely case is that charity was distributed through private means and synagogues. In that case, Hellenists may have had fewer connections to local families distributing the food. In either case, Hellenists may have had a disproportionate number of widows since many Hellenists moved to Israel once advanced in age. (So, perhaps there were more unprovided Hellenist widows simply because there were more Hellenist widows.) Finally, as I explained above, local widows may have had family to care for them, making them less dependent on charity.

The Solution

Faced with the widows’ charge, how do the apostles respond? They recognize their limitations and their explicit calling. They realize that they must prioritize the “word of God” and leave the distribution of food to someone else. This is a clear example of delegation of duties in the context of ministry. It is also an example of prioritizing the message over charity when the two are mutually exclusive. Jesus had already exemplified both of these points.

After Jesus called the twelve together, he gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. Luke 9:1-2

The next morning Jesus departed and went to a deserted place. Yet the crowds were seeking him, and they came to him and tried to keep him from leaving them. But Jesus said to them, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns too, for that is what I was sent to do.” So he continued to preach in the synagogues of Judea. Luke 4:42-44

Even if a solution is clear in principle, it is not always clear in practice. To whom should the apostles delegate the important duty of handling and distributing church property? We will discuss the character requirement of the new leaders in a minute, but we must notice that (probably) all of them belong to the offended minority. We can surmise their Hellenist ethnicity from their names and the bit of information provided about a couple of them. I know that the church’s “affirmative action” in Acts 6 is sure to be viewed extremely negatively (or extremely positively, depending on one’s political persuasion) in our modern-day culture; but, if we can leave that aside for a minute, consider the strategy’s efficacy. To address the complaint that Hellenists are being subjected to discrimination in the distribution of food, Hellenist are put in charge of the food distribution. The claim of favoritism is resoundingly defeated. (Notice the apostles did not require the church to select Hellenists. Presumably, the church as a whole thought that this course of action was appropriate.)

Nonetheless, the new leaders are not merely affirmative-action hires. The apostles define basic qualifications for service: good reputation; full of the Spirit and wisdom. They invite the church as a whole to choose representatives who meet these qualifications.

In the ancient world, qualifications for leadership were common, including to hold civic offices. Being of good reputation, or as our passage puts it, “favorably attested,” was essential in Greco-Roman politics. The new leaders must also be “full of the Spirit.” This probably indicates a continuous state rather than a mere occasion of being “filled with the Spirit” (although the two senses of the phrase are not mutually exclusive).

In the list of qualifications for leadership, the Spirit is linked to wisdom (“full of the Spirit and wisdom”). As we discussed during our study of John, Jewish literature often linked and sometimes equated the Spirit of God with wisdom. Consider, for example:

You are to speak to all who are specially skilled, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, so that they may make Aaron’s garments to set him apart to minister as my priest. Exodus 28:3

For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:6

For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, . . . Wisdom 7:24-26

Part of the requisite wisdom would undoubtedly be knowledge of how to manage funds.

12 and 7

As we discussed at the beginning of our Acts study, the number of apostles is important. Twelve was the number of Jewish tribes; the twelve apostles represent the remnant of Israel carrying on the faith. What about the number seven? Is there a reason that seven people were selected as leaders of the Jerusalem church?

Several ancient cultures, including the Jewish people, used the number seven symbolically, particularly for groups of leaders. The number 70 (or seventy-something) appears frequently as well. For example, in Luke 10:1, Jesus appoints 72 men to preach the good news from town to town. But most importantly, there is a particular Old Testament story that connects with Acts 6. The fact that seven leaders are appointed in response to a complaint by the people of God harkens back to Numbers 11.

When the people complained, it displeased the Lord. When the Lord heard it, his anger burned, and so the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some of the outer parts of the camp. When the people cried to Moses, he prayed to the Lord, and the fire died out. So he called the name of that place Taberah because there the fire of the Lord burned among them.

Now the mixed multitude who were among them craved more desirable foods, and so the Israelites wept again and said, “If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we used to eat freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now we are dried up, and there is nothing at all before us except this manna!” . . .

Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, everyone at the door of his tent; and when the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly, Moses was also displeased. And Moses said to the Lord, “Why have you afflicted your servant? Why have I not found favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of this entire people on me? Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your arms, as a foster father bears a nursing child,’ to the land that you swore to their fathers? From where shall I get meat to give to this entire people, for they cry to me, ‘Give us meat, that we may eat!’ I am not able to bear this entire people alone, because it is too heavy for me! But if you are going to deal with me like this, then kill me immediately. If I have found favor in your sight then do not let me see my trouble.”

The Lord said to Moses, “Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know are elders of the people and officials over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting; let them take their position there with you. Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take part of the Spirit that is on you, and will put it on them, and they will bear some of the burden of the people with you, so that you do not bear it all by yourself. Numbers 11:1-16

However, we should also consider the possibility that the apostles meant nothing by the number seven. Perhaps they were simply being practical. Consider the study note in the NET Bible:

Seven. Jewish town councils often had seven members (Josephus, Ant. 4.18.14 [4.214])

In other words, the apostles needed a ruling council and ruling councils generally had seven members. This would be like if we started a company today and appointed a president, a secretary, and a treasurer. Why three officers? Why call them president, secretary, and treasurer? Because that is “how it’s done.” We would intend no deeper meaning.

Deacons for Them, Deacons for Us? Wait, Deacons?

A question churches have wrestled to answer for two thousand years is what constitutes proper church government—or, as is referred to in theological terms, church polity. Central to the discussion of church polity is determining which church “offices” (if any) are ordained by Scripture. Recall my example above in which I mentioned three corporate offices: president, secretary, and treasurer. One can hardly discuss which duties belong to the secretary and which belong to the treasurer until one determines that a company should have a secretary and a treasurer. In the church context, there are three potential offices: bishop, elder (or pastor, or presbyter), and deacon (or servant). (Sometimes a fourth office is considered, that of pastor or teacher from the Greek words poimen and didaskalos. Let’s ignore that for now, but I will mention it again at the end of our discussion.) Each of these offices comes from a distinct Greek term. Here is a brief rundown of these terms that I adapted from this handy article.

Episkopos. This word episkopos (from which we get Episcopal) is used a total of 5 times in the New Testament, always in reference to someone who has authority to lead in ministry. It is usually translated “overseer” or “bishop.”

Presbuteros. The word presbuteros occurs 72 times in the New Testament, and it has a range of meanings. The majority of the time (57 times) it is translated "elder" and means a position of leadership in the church, like a pastor or other member of church leadership. It differs from episkopos in that it also assumes the quality of old age. In fact, the word presbuteros is also translated at times to mean “older man” (10 times) and even once as “older woman.”

Diakonos. The word diakonos means “one who serves in ministry” or more generally, “servant.” The word appears 29 times in the New Testament. Of those 29 times, it is translated (by the NASB) as “deacon” three times, as “minister” seven times, and as “servant” 19 times.

The most controversial of the three offices is the first: bishop. Bishops are generally understood to be overseers of several pastors (i.e., presbuteros). They are regional leaders. Yet, many Christian denominations believe that each congregation is governmentally independent so there can be no such thing as a leader of multiple congregations. An example of a denomination that recognizes bishops (episkopos) as distinct and superior in rank to elders (presbuteros) is the Catholic church. An example of a denomination that does not recognize bishops is Baptist churches. The main argument made by churches that do not recognize bishops is that the terms episkopos and presbuteros are synonyms—not distinct church offices.

You might be wondering: how can Christian churches disagree about something like this? Surely the text of scripture is crystal clear. Alas, languages are tricky and Greek is no exception. Consider Acts 6. Is it a good biblical foundation for the church office of deacon (diakonos)?

In Acts 6, the word diakonos does not appear. In verses 1 and 4, a related but different noun appears (diakonia), translated as “distribution” and “ministry” respectively. The verb cognate of diakonos appears in verse 2. It is translated as “to wait” (as in, “to wait on tables”). Yet, one cannot simply assume that the verb points to its noun cognate. In other words, the text may only be referring to the act of service and not to some special office. For example, consider the noun “server” and the verb “to serve” in English. The noun can refer to a particular office (e.g., a restaurant server) while the verb rarely points to such office. (If I say, “I served food at home,” I am not implying that I hold the office of “server” at home.) However, this has not stopped many Christian thinkers, including ancient thinkers such as Irenaeus, Pseudo-Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, from applying this passage to the diaconate.

Of course, one could use Acts 6 to argue for a certain church office apart from linguistic evidence. Undoubtedly, the apostles gave the new seven leader some kind of authority in the church. But without the linguistic component to connects Acts 6 with other passages that mention the word diakonos, one has a harder time arguing for a universal church office. Moreover, even the noun form of diakonos most often refers not to a church leader but to servants in other ministry contexts (Christ as minister (Rom 15:8), Paul as minister (2 Cor 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25), Paul and colleagues (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4), Paul’s fellow ministers of the gospel (Rom 16:1; Eph 6:21; Col 1:7; 4:7; 1 Tim 4:6)).

Where am I headed with this extensive discussion? In regard to Acts 6 particularly, I think the text clearly shows that a church may find itself in need of people to assist with different matters, and the church is right to recognize and appoint such helpers. However, I do not think that Acts 6, at least on its own, can be used to argue for some special, universal church office. In regard to the broader discussion of church polity, I am trying to show that church polity is a difficult topic. Scriptural passages are sometimes used to argue beyond what the text truly conveys. Furthermore, even when arguing in good faith, churches may reasonably reach different conclusions.

With that in mind, I would like to explore some of the different ways that churches organize and govern themselves. Before we do that, let’s discuss the last two noteworthy points in today’s text.

Democracy?

How are the seven leaders selected? We are not really told, but we are given two important details. The selection was made by the “group.” And, the group “chose” the leaders. The latter fact means that the group did not cast lots or employ another form of chance to identify the leaders. So, how did the “group” make the selection? As modern readers, we assume a democratic vote was taken. That could be the case, but it is by no means a necessary implication of the text. For example, perhaps the elders (i.e., older men) made the choice. As with the discussion of deacons above, Acts 6 allows for only modest conclusions. On one hand, the apostles did not lord their authority over the congregation and left the leadership decision up to the group. On the other hand, we are not told that the church should be organized democratically. In this passage, there is simply not enough data to surmise a non-hierarchical, democratic church government or, for that matter, its opposite. (Perhaps one could reach some of those conclusions by taking the whole counsel of scripture. I am obviously not denying that.)

Laying Hands

The people chose the leaders, but the apostles commissioned them by praying and “lay[ing] hands on them.” This recalls the Old Testament scene in Numbers 27.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go up this mountain of the Abarim range, and see the land I have given to the Israelites. When you have seen it, you will be gathered to your ancestors, as Aaron your brother was gathered to his ancestors. . . .

Then Moses spoke to the Lord: “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all humankind, appoint a man over the community, who will go out before them, and who will come in before them, and who will lead them out, and who will bring them in, so that the community of the Lord may not be like sheep that have no shepherd.”

The Lord replied to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him; set him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community, and commission him publicly. Then you must delegate some of your authority to him, so that the whole community of the Israelites will be obedient. . . .

So Moses did as the Lord commanded him; he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community. He laid his hands on him and commissioned him, just as the Lord commanded, by the authority of Moses. Numbers 27:12-22

Laying of hands is a form of commissioning, but it also evokes patriarchal blessings and empowerment. After the fall of Jerusalem, Rabbis used laying of hands to ordain their pupils. Unsurprisingly, churches use it today to ordain pastors, priests, bishops, and sometimes deacons. The fullest examples of laying of hands in the New Testament are found in two letters written by Paul.

Command and teach these things. Let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in your speech, conduct, love, faithfulness, and purity. Until I come, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the spiritual gift you have, given to you and confirmed by prophetic words when the elders laid hands on you. 1 Timothy 4:11-14

(As the NET notes explain, the last phrase in the verses quoted above can be translated more literally as, “with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery,” i.e., the council of elders.)

Because of this I remind you to rekindle God’s gift that you possess through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me, a prisoner for his sake, but by God’s power accept your share of suffering for the gospel. 2 Timothy 1:6-8

Notice that inducting members into a position of authority by laying of hands requires there to be someone already in leadership. Otherwise, there would be nobody to perform the laying of hands. This raises a no small question. Is church leadership only valid if it is conveyed by a prior church leader. Must there be a line of succession from Jesus, to the apostles, to whomever the apostles appointed to lead, all the way to your local pastor? As you might imagine, this idea is debated, but (rather surprisingly) most denominations agree that some kind of succession is necessary. I say “some kind” of succession because there is less agreement as to what succession really entails.

Modern Denominations’ Polity

As I mentioned at the beginning, I want to end today’s session on a practical note. I imagine that some of this Bible study’s participants may be considering which church to join. One of the questions that seems unfathomable from the outside is how churches are organized. Who is really in charge? How are churches connected, if at all? Below I include a summary of churches’ polities adapted from a Gospel Coalition article. This summary is not great, but I will discuss more details during our live session.

Eastern Orthodox: Bishops, following in the succession of the apostles, appoint male priests (also known as elders or presbyters) to pastor the people. Deacons serve the material needs of the congregation and play a key role in liturgical life. Synods (teams of bishops) lead the church, not a single bishop or pope.

Catholic: Authority rests with the bishops who follow in the succession of the apostles. Bishops are helped by male priests (also known as elders or presbyters) to pastor the people. Deacons serve the material needs of the congregation. The pope, the bishop of Rome, is the key human authority over the church, who is infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the full seat of authority on issues of faith or morals).

Anglican: Anglicanism resembles Catholicism in organizational structure, with an archbishop presiding over other bishops, who preside over priests and deacons in local congregations. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop and symbolic head, as a first among equals.

Lutheranism: Lutheran Churches can vary between a more episcopal form of government and a more congregational form of government. Lutheran churches in America tend to be more congregational, though with some authority given to synods at different levels.

Presbyterian: Local congregations are governed by teams of elders (teaching and ruling elders), who take part in a larger assembly of elders (presbyteries), which take part in an even larger assembly (synod or a general assembly).

Methodism: The Methodist system follows the polity of connexionalism, which teaches the importance of connection among believers at various levels. Methodism uses conferences at different levels composed of both elected laypeople and ordained ministers to govern the needs and concerns of local churches up through the entire denomination.

Baptist: Baptist churches believe that Christ is the head of the church and that Christ guides every local church through the Spirit living within the members of each church. While Baptists may voluntarily join associations, each individual church is autonomous. Most Baptist churches are congregation-ruled, but some are led by single pastors while others are led by a plurality of elders, selected by church members.

Evangelical Free Church: Evangelical Free churches follow a congregational model of church governance.

Church of Christ: Churches of Christ are independent congregations with elders, deacons, and ministers leading the congregation. Ministers are understood to serve under the oversight of the elders. While the presence of a long-term professional minister has sometimes created significant de facto ministerial authority"and led to conflict between the minister and the elders, the eldership has remained the ultimate locus of authority in the congregation.

Pentecostal: Pentecostal churches are congregationalists. They may be independent congregations or local congregations that associate with other like-minded churches (“cooperative fellowships”). Generally, the congregation selects a minister and a board of deacons. Some Pentecostal churches are adopting an “eldership model” vesting some of the congregation’s authority on a group of elders.

Non-Denominational Churches: Non-denominational churches will be congregational since they have no commitment to any specific denomination.