14  Spiritual  Organization (6:1-7)

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (6:1–7)

Christians, someone once said, become very unchristian when they get organized. That remark crystallizes one side of the long-running debate over church polity. One extreme, affirming the power of Christ in His church, would agree with that sentiment. Its proponents argue that the church should reject formal organization or structure and just flow with the Spirit. Whatever is organized, they insist, cannot be from God. Some would even reject the concept of church membership. Such a loose, unorganized model of the church, however, underestimates the strength of the flesh and is inconsistent with the character of God (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33). All creation reflects the highly organized nature of its Creator. Nor is it consistent with the thoughtful New Testament teaching on how the church is to function.

Others would structure the church like a Fortune 500 corporation, complete with detailed organizational charts, job descriptions, boards, committees, and subcommittees. The Holy Spirit, they hope, will operate within the rigid framework they have constructed. They will reject any bold, new proposals because “We’ve never done it that way before.” These people tend to underestimate the strength of the new nature and the power of the Spirit.

Both extremes are wrong; the church is neither a highly contrived corporation nor a loose commune, but an organism. It has both an organic unity and an operative life principle, since all members are connected to its living Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet just as living organisms require structure and organization to function, so does the church.

The early church set the example of a living, interdependent organism. Their unity and power gave them a testimony that swept Jerusalem. Multitudes had come to faith in Jesus Christ. No persecution or opposition from the Jewish authorities could stop the spread of the gospel. The believers’ love for each other, expressed in the sharing of material goods, had made a profound impact on the community. As a result, even unbelievers held the church in high regard (5:13).

The church’s explosive growth had brought with it the need for further organization. It was already somewhat organized. They knew (at least early on) the number of converts (2:41) and members (4:4). Someone must have been keeping count. They met together in specific places at specific times. The believers also met for meals in private homes. Money and goods were collected by the apostles and distributed to those in need. Sin had to be dealt with. All those activities also demanded some level of organization. The church became further structured as its life and growth demanded.

That illustrates an important principle: Biblical church organization always responds to needs and to what the Spirit is already doing. To organize a program and then expect the Holy Spirit to get involved in it is to put the cart before the horse. We dare not try to force the Spirit to fit our mold. Organization is never an end in itself but only a means to facilitate what the Lord is doing in His church.

In Acts chapter 6 the church faced its first serious organizational crisis. To eliminate a potentially divisive problem required further organization. From this first organizational meeting four features stand out: the reason, the requirements, the roster, and the results.

THE REASON

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables…. But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” (6:1–2,4)

At the very time that the disciples were increasing in number another problem arose. It was related to their rapid growth. Just how large the church had become is not known, since they no longer kept an accurate count. The last figure given, 5,000 (4:4), apparently included only the men. To that figure must be added the women and youths and those who had joined the church since then (cf. 5:14). There must have been more than 20,000 in the Jerusalem church at this point.

Without means of mass communication, the leadership and administrative problems associated with such a large congregation were enormous. Merely to meet their spiritual needs and to deal with sin would have been a daunting task, let alone caring for their physical needs. Not only did the size of the church create problems, but also its explosive growth left little time to adjust. As a result, the apostles could no longer handle the entire load of caring for the congregation. Further organization was needed.

There was another reason for the church to organize. They had fulfilled the first part of the Lord’s four-part charge to them (1:8). They had saturated Jerusalem with the gospel message (5:28) and even begun to reach out to the surrounding region (5:16). Now they were poised to evangelize Samaria and the Gentile world. To do so successfully required further planning and structuring of the assembly.

In a congregation of that size, it was inevitable that someone’s needs would be overlooked. It comes as no surprise to learn that a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. Here was an issue that Satan could use with devastating force against the church. He had already attacked it through persecution (4:1–31; 5:17–41). That, however, had merely caused the church to grow faster (4:4). Next, he had sought to cripple it by introducing sin into the body (5:1–11). God stepped in quickly and judged Ananias and Sapphira, and again Satan’s attack failed ignominiously. As with persecution, it only made the church’s number increase (5:14). The purified church was even more effective in spreading the gospel.

Having failed to stop the church through persecution or corruption, Satan tried a third tactic. He sought to create dissension within the church. A church racked by internal conflict finds its message lost in conflict, its energy dissipated. And a church thus focused on itself will find it difficult to reach out to the lost world. Before the church could evangelize the Gentile world, they would have to deal with any division within their ranks. That was the need that spurred the church to further organization.

The Hellenistic Jews were those of the Diaspora. Unlike the native or Palestinian Hebrews, their native language was Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew. They used the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew Scriptures. While remaining loyal to Judaism, they had absorbed some of the Greek culture that surrounded them. That made them suspect to the Palestinian Jews, especially the Pharisees. “According to the Talmud, Pharisaism made little secret of its contempt for Hellenists … they were frequently categorized by the native-born and assumedly more scrupulous populace of Jerusalem as second-class Israelites” (Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 329). Some of that racial and cultural hostility carried over into the church.

Many of the Hellenists had been in Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost. After their conversion, they decided to remain there under the apostles’ teaching. Others were older people who had returned to Palestine to live out their lives. They were a minority in the church, which helps explain why their needs were overlooked.

As often happens, matters came to a head over a seemingly insignificant issue. The Hellenists complained that their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. Care of widows was traditional in Jewish society (cf. Deut. 14:29; 16:11; 24:19–21; 26:12). Paul later defined it as the responsibility of the church (1 Tim. 5:3ff.). Given the natural dichotomy between the Hellenists and native Palestinians, this issue could easily have split the church. Certainly the fact that the Hellenist Jews spoke of their widows collectively indicates they felt the neglect was deliberate.

The Hellenists’ complaint eventually came to the attention of the twelve. Luke uses that term to describe the apostles only here in Acts, though he uses it six times in his gospel. Recognizing the legitimacy of the Hellenists’ grievance, they summoned the congregation of the disciples to seek a solution. While the apostles recognized the problem, they did not have the time to handle it. It was not desirable for the apostles to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. It may be helpful to note that the word for tables, trapeza, can mean “a table or counter of a money changer,” or “money matters,” as well as an eating table (cf. such use in Matt. 21:12; Luke 19:23). To involve themselves in the details of serving meals and handling money matters would take them away from their calling. Instead, they would devote themselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. The apostles knew their priority was praying, preaching, teaching, and studying the Word. They would let nothing, however pressing, distract them from those duties. They said, in effect, “You serve the tables and we will serve the Word.” Paul was concerned that the needs of the poor be met (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8–9), but never wanted to be distracted by the details (1 Cor. 16:1–4).

Many in the ministry today have left the emphasis on prayer and the Word of God. They are so involved in the administrative details of their church that they have little time left for intercession and study. Yet pastors are given to the church “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). Their calling is to mature the saints so they can do the work of the ministry. By neglecting that calling, they doom their congregations to languish in spiritual infancy. Programs are no substitute for the power of God and His Word. Those whom God has called to the ministry of prayer and the Word must make it their priority.

Prayer and the ministry of the word are inseparably linked. Prayer must permeate a pastor’s sermon preparation, or his sermons will be superficial and dry. He must also pray constantly that his people will apply the truths he teaches them. The man of God must also pray that he would be a pure channel through which God’s truth can flow to his congregation. (For a discussion of the relationship of prayer to preaching, see James E. Rosscup, “The Priority of Prayer and Expository Preaching,” in John F. MacArthur, Jr., Rediscovering Expository Preaching [Dallas: Word, 1992].)

The greatest proclaimer of God’s Word who ever lived, the apostle Paul, was a man devoted to prayer. He assured the Romans that “God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you always in my prayers” (Rom. 1:9–10). He told the Ephesians “[I] do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers (Eph. 1:16). To the Philippians he wrote, “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all” (Phil. 1:3–4). Paul also prayed constantly for the Colossian church: “For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col. 1:9). Paul’s passion for the Word was equaled only by his devotion to prayer.

The apostles’ pledge to devote themselves to their ministry set the pattern for all to follow. The ministry demands total commitment, everything a man has to give. There is no substitute for hard work and discipline. A young man once said to the gifted expository preacher of God’s Word Donald Grey Barnhouse, “I’d give the world to be able to teach the Bible like you.” Looking him straight in the eye Dr. Barnhouse replied, “Good, because that’s exactly what it will cost you.”

Again, Paul serves as an appropriate model of the commitment to the Word that the ministry demands. In his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders he said,

Acts 19:9–10 describes Paul’s ministry at Ephesus: “But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” Imprisoned in Rome, he nevertheless “was solemnly testifying [to the Jews of Rome] about the kingdom of God, and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening” (Acts 28:23). That continued for two years (28:30–31).

Paul expressed his personal philosophy of ministry in the following words:

From his dramatic conversion on the Damascus Road to the day a Roman executioner ended his life, Paul gave himself totally to the ministry. There is no other way. Every minister of Jesus Christ must give heed to Paul’s exhortation to Timothy:

The devotion that Paul demanded of his young protégé is the same devotion the Lord Jesus Christ demands of all who serve Him.

THE REQUIREMENTS

But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. (6:3)

While the apostles had to remain faithful to their priorities, the problem of distributing the food and money equitably remained. That important ministry needed oversight, and others would have to be found to do that. Accordingly, the apostles commanded the believers to select from their own ranks seven men. The word translated select is from the verb episkeptomai, meaning “to oversee,” or “to supervise.” The congregation was to look over the men who were respected and present their choices to the apostles. They would make the final decision regarding their appointment to the task, as indicated by the words whom we may put in charge of this task.

This brief verse lists five required characteristics for those appointed to church ministry. First, those who would lead the church must be men. Women certainly have vital roles to fill (cf. Titus 2:3–5). In the early church, such women as Dorcas, Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla, and Philip’s daughters were greatly used by God. Nevertheless, God’s design for the church is that men assume the leadership roles (1 Cor. 11:3, 8, 9; 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11–12).

A second requirement is that they be from among you. That indicates more than the obvious truth that those who lead the church must be believers. Churches should seek to develop their leadership from within their own ranks. By hiring pastors away from other churches, they often overlook the gifted men God has raised up in their own congregations. A church committed to the ministry of edifying and equipping its members will not have to look elsewhere for its leaders.

A third requirement for leaders is that they be men of good reputation. They must be men of integrity, above reproach, as is required of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Servants must set an example of godliness for their people to follow. And they must be qualified spiritually regardless of their position in the world or their human ability. To have a good reputation was essential for these seven, since they would be entrusted with large sums of money to purchase the food to be distributed.

Those who would lead the church must also be full of the Spirit. They must be fully yielded to His control in every area of their lives. Such men were Stephen (Acts 6:5) and Barnabas (Acts 11:24).

A final requirement is that they possess wisdom. They must have biblical and theological knowledge, and the practical wisdom to apply biblical truth to the situations of everyday life. They must be men of sober, righteous judgment. First Chronicles 12:32 describes some wise leaders of Israel as “men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do.” Such men does God call to serve His church.

The question arises as to whether these seven can be properly viewed as the first official deacons. They performed some functions of the later deacons, and forms of the Greek word diakonos (deacon) are used to describe their ministry (vv. 1–2). Yet to view them in terms of a formal office is anachronistic. Of the seven, only Stephen and Philip appear elsewhere in Scripture, but they are never called deacons. Indeed, Stephen’s later ministry was clearly that of an evangelist, as was Philip’s (Acts 21:8). While Acts later refers to elders (14:23; 20:17), there is no mention of deacons. That is strange, if the office of deacon began in Acts 6. Further, all seven had Greek names, implying that they may have been Hellenists. It seems unlikely, however, that a permanent order of deacons for the Jerusalem church would include no native Palestinian Jews.

There are important principles in this passage for the continuing life of the church. Here we see that the congregation is to nominate certain spiritually qualified men to serve, with the final appointment resting with those already in position as teachers and spiritual leaders. Still, it seems best to see the selection of these seven as the Jerusalem church’s response to a temporary crisis. It should be noted that the Greek word group from which our English word “deacon” derives denotes service in general. Diakonos, diakoneō, and diakonia are used throughout the New Testament in a general, nonspecific way (cf. Luke 4:39; 10:40; 17:8; 22:27; John 2:5, 9; 12:2; Rom. 13:3–4; 15:25; 2 Cor. 8:3–4). Thus their use in Acts 6 does not imply that the seven held the office of a deacon. Significantly, when the church at Antioch later sent famine relief to the Jerusalem church, no mention is made of deacons (Acts 11:29–30). Instead, the relief was sent to the elders. Stephen and Philip certainly did not continue long in this role, since both became evangelists. And persecution would shortly scatter the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 8:1), ending the ministry of the other five. God raised them for a brief period of ministry, to handle a crisis. The continuing unity of the church shows the effectiveness of their ministry.

THE ROSTER

And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. (6:56)

The apostles’ plan found approval with the whole congregation, and seven men were appointed to the ministry. That all seven bore Greek names suggests all were Hellenists. If true, it was a demonstration of the loving unity of the church. Since the Hellenists felt slighted, the church decided to appoint seven from among them to rectify the situation. A split was thus avoided, and again Satan’s attack was thwarted.

Stephen was to play a pivotal role in the spread of the gospel beyond Jerusalem. It was the persecution connected with his martyrdom that propelled the church out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). The commendation of him as a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit reveals his character.

Philip also plays a prominent role in Acts. He took the gospel to the Samaritans (8:4–25), and to the Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40). Four of his daughters became prophetesses (21:8).

Nothing definite is known about the remaining five men. Some early traditions connect Prochorus with John the apostle, possibly as his amanuensis when he wrote his gospel. According to those traditions, he later became bishop of Nicomedia and was martyred in Antioch (John B. Polhill, The New American Commentary: Acts [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], p. 182).

All that is known for certain about Nicolas is that he was a proselyte (a Gentile convert to Judaism) from Antioch. Some of the church Fathers associated him with the heretical group known as the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 15). But there is no evidence, apart from the similarity in the names, to connect him with that group. And as Lenski rightly observes, “It ought to be understood that decidedly more evidence is required in a matter of so serious a charge” (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961], 246).

The congregation brought the seven before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. This first occasion in the New Testament of laying on of hands signified the identification and affirmation of the church with these men, and the support of their ministry. Elders, deacons, and all who served in the early church were ordained this way (cf. Acts 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

All though little is known about most of these men, they played a crucial role in the foundational history of the church. But for them, either the apostles’ priorities would have been compromised, or the church may have split. Either would have been disastrous.

THE RESULTS

And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (6:7)

As already noted, the organization of the church freed the apostles to devote themselves to prayer and the Word. It also avoided a church split. Luke closes this section, as he has before, by noting the development of the church. The word of God kept on spreading from the church as a direct result of the freeing of the apostles to carry out their primary ministry, and also of the church’s unity. As the Word continued to spread, the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem. Greatly, like the general reference to multitudes (5:14), shows that there were so many new converts being added that they lost count of the exact number. Astonishingly, a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. These were, of course, not the chief priests or members of the Sanhedrin, but a very large number of the rank and file priests who ministered in the temple.Perhaps this dramatic impact of the gospel on the priests accounts for the opposition that soon arose against Stephen.

The church today needs organization for the same reasons as the first fellowship. Pastors must be freed to focus on the preaching of the Word and prayer. Better organization can help meet the needs of all members and thus avoid conflict. And a unified, well-taught church will be a powerful witness to the lost world.