Acts 6:1–7 · NIVAC

Original Meaning

The Problem (6:1)

JEWISH SOCIETY HAD a system to help needy widows. Probably the isolation that resulted when these people became Christians made these sources less accessible to them. Grecian widows were particularly needy as they were not native Judeans and did not have relatives to care for them. A lot of older couples came to die in Jerusalem so that they could be buried there.

There has been much discussion about who exactly the “Grecian Jews” were. The traditional view since John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) has been that they were Greek-speaking Jews while the Hebraic Jews spoke Aramaic. In spite of other suggestions, scholarly consensus seems to be going back to this view.1 Probably these people grew up in the Diaspora, outside Palestine. Such cultural differences also resulted in differences in attitude and outlook.2

Almost certainly the Grecian widows were not deliberately discriminated against. The cause of the problem was the increase in the number of disciples (v. 1a). In an active and expanding movement it is possible for less prominent people not to be noticed. But that is still wrong. The Old Testament has many clear and specific regulations to ensure that socially depressed people like widows, orphans, and aliens are not overlooked. When a system is instituted such problems are minimized.

Problems among different ethnic and cultural groups have been common in the church. Barclay thinks that in Jewish society the Hebraic Jews looked down on the Grecians.3 Longenecker thinks that pre-Christian prejudices may have reasserted themselves in the church. All of this contributed to the complaining that took place in the church.4 The word translated “complained” (gongysmos) is an unpleasant word, used in the LXX for the murmuring of the Jews against Moses in the desert (Ex. 16:7; Num. 14:27). The church was now in danger of splitting. The problem might aggravate if it was not handled sensitively.

Bridging Contexts

HOW CAN WE apply this passage? In a narrative book like Acts in some situations we can derive principles that apply to every situation in the Christian life. But in other situations, things happened that give us examples that may be helpful to remember, even though we cannot glean absolute principles from them. We need not think that every time we have a similar situation this is the only method to use. Here are two such examples from this passage.

• Acts outlines different methods of decision making in the church, and in this passage we find one such method. What is important here is that the leadership of the church led in this crisis and congregation had important input to give. This is a proper method to follow whenever decisions that affect the whole congregation are taken.

• We also see wisdom in the way the church handled the multicultural nature of her first constituency. But I do not think we can make an absolute principle out of how they acted in this situation.

In other words, as we apply this passage, we must note both types of material here: abiding principles and helpful examples. We now move to former.

Dealing with unity issues immediately and sensitively. While we can take comfort in the fact that the early church also had problems of disunity, we are challenged by the way these problems were immediately dealt with (cf. also the deception of Ananias and Sapphira, 5:1–11). Several factors could have prompted the apostles to shelve this problem without dealing with it right away. But they did deal with it, and the church took a great step forward.

The church used much sensitivity in the way they solved the problem. (1) Since this was a problem relating to a practice that affected the whole church, the entire group was involved in the solution. The principles were presented by the leaders (vv. 2–4), but their implementation involved the congregation: They did the choosing (v. 5). (2) Some, if not all, of those chosen for the distribution of food were Grecians (v. 5). There is much wisdom here, for they would know the needs of their own people best. (3) In solving this unity problem, the church took an administrative decision (vv. 3–6). Improper administration is often the cause of disunity and ill health in a church community. When important things that need to be done are overlooked, unease spreads among those who are affected.

Prayer and the ministry of the Word. Not all interpreters agree that it was a good idea for the apostles to take on the special responsibility to attend to prayer and the ministry of the Word. I have heard people say that this decision put a wedge between spiritual and the material, where the top leaders did the spiritual work and others did the less important material work. We must be careful about saying a mistake occurred here since at the end of this section, Luke reports that the church continued to be healthy and vibrant (v. 7). This is Luke’s way of saying that God blessed the decision taken.

The idea that a mistake took place here arises from misconceptions about this passage. It does not say that prayer and the ministry of the Word are more important than the distribution of food. That is so only if we adopt an unbiblical separation of the sacred and the secular, which this passage does not adopt. This decision did not form a “spiritual elite.”13 Rather, the apostles affirmed that they had a primary calling and that they needed to exercise their spiritual gifts.

Nor does this passage say that the apostles prayed and ministered the Word to the exclusion of other ministries. They were not “pure” specialists. Paul’s description of his ministry in Acts 20 shows that he did other things (20:34–35) besides preaching. Moreover, waiting on tables was not the only ministry that the Seven had. “It is clear that this was not their only role—perhaps not even their most important role. . . . This group was foremost in propagating the Christian message throughout Judea and the neighboring regions; it eventually launched the Gentile mission.”14

Criteria for selecting administrative workers. Three criteria were important in the selection of officers to administer the distribution of food. They had to have a good reputation, to be filled with wisdom, and to be filled with the Spirit (v. 3). The responsibilities given to the Seven are like those we give to administrative workers in our churches today. When we appoint people to administrative posts in churches and other Christian groups, we too should look for these three important qualifications.

A multicultural church. The Jerusalem church faced a serious problem in unity because of its multicultural composition. The conclusion of David Fiensy in a study of the composition of the Jerusalem church is that “the indications are that nearly all levels of society were represented. The church seems to have been a microcosm of the city.”15 The solution to the problem facing the church was not to divide and have separate churches—one for the Grecians and another for the Hebraists. Rather, they sought to ensure that the Grecians were cared for.

The multicultural nature of the church was preserved even in Antioch, where “the cosmopolitan population of [the city] was reflected in the membership of its church, and indeed in its leadership” (13:1).16 “Eastern and western cultures were in contact and conflict [in Antioch]. The relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the church was debated and decided” here (Acts 15; Gal. 2:11–13).17 Yet the early believers remained as a single church. Recent studies also show that the churches founded by Paul had a mixture of social levels in each congregation and reflected a fair cross section of urban society.18

Some have made too much of the separate cultural groups in the church in Jerusalem, using that as a precedent for having separate churches for different groups. Ernst Haenchen argues from chapters 6–11 that there was a cleavage in the church, even though Luke does not like to admit it since he was trying to present a picture of an ideal church. He claims that 8:1 implies this division when it says that all the believers except the apostles were scattered in the great persecution after Stephen’s death—the Grecians left and the Hebraists stayed.19 This is not at all certain. Indeed, would Luke distort facts simply in order to present an ideal church?20

John Polhill is nearer to the truth when he says, “There is no reason to picture a breach or separation in the total Christian community—only a sort of ‘distancing’ created by natural linguistic and cultural differences.”21 The multicultural nature of the New Testament church is worth emulating today.

Contemporary Significance

SETTLING UNITY ISSUES today. Some leaders try to sweep problems like those faced in Acts 6 under the carpet because they do not want to face the humiliation that comes if such problems surface. Others attempt to force a unity through exercises of worship or external affirmations of unity, like picnics and hugs. Others are overcome by hurt in that, despite their good intentions and hard work, people attribute bad motives to them. Still others may feel offended by the attitude of the grumblers and focus on that attitude without solving the root of the problem. Such delays in dealing with problems usually aggravate situations and open the door for mighty explosions, which result in major church splits.

Christ’s teaching on unity problems is clear: “If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23–24). Regardless of whether we think this brother is justified to be angry with us and whether he has been honorable in his actions or not, we must go to him immediately. So urgent is the issue that we should hold back at the altar a gift we have come to give. Elsewhere Paul said, “ ‘In your anger do not sin’: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold” (Eph. 4:26–27). In family life and in community life, if we delay dealing with anger, we give the devil a foothold.

I live in a land of ethnic turmoil, where the church has members from both ethnic groups in the conflict. Often Christians do not talk about their problems with people of the other race; they keep their prejudices and complaints to themselves and discuss them only with people of their own group. They are polite and friendly when they meet those of the other group, but there is an undercurrent of anger, which occasionally surfaces. When we act in this way, we cease to be a healing community in our land. Christians must constantly be on the alert to the danger of unchristian prejudices reappearing in the church and deal with them decisively when they arise. We know that God is bigger than the problem and that what unites us is deeper than what divides us; thus, we must have the courage to face up to the problem squarely.

Making administrative changes. In the early years of a movement, needs can be met through the memory and observation of the leaders. But as the movement grows (v. 1), memory and observation can be taxed beyond a certain level, demanding a new structure to ensure that these needs are met. People may look back to the early days when all these administrative requirements were not there and conclude that new requirements demonstrate a breakdown of trust within the movement. “Why do we have to fill all these forms; don’t they trust us anymore?” they ask, and they long for the early days. But structures are designed to serve an organization, and they must change according to its needs. Sometimes new structures and policies are needed to ensure that important things do not get overlooked.

What we must always ensure in any change is that the original vision and passion of the movement be maintained. This is a key responsibility of the leader. The new structures must always be kept in a subsidiary position. One sure way to check whether a rotting process has begun in a group is to see what topics predominate in discussions when the leaders meet. If maintenance of structures has overtaken mission as the major topic, we know that rot has set in. Luke shows that the new structure did not muffle the vision. After describing the organizational changes, he reports on how the church continued to grow (v. 7).

Leadership and prayer. Why and how do leaders give priority to prayer? Four points can be made here. (1) God is the ultimate leader of any Christian group. The earthly leaders represent him as his agents on earth. If they are to do so adequately, they must be attuned to him. And there is no better way for that to happen than by spending time with him in prayer and in the study of the Word. As we do so, his nature becomes implanted in us and we become godly. We think his thoughts and can thus lead as he would lead.

Sometimes when we are concerned about the lack of godliness in our churches, we look for a program that will help raise the spiritual life of the people. As a result, we organize prayer meetings, seminars, and revival meetings. While these may help, more important is the renewal of godliness in the life of the leadership. The Scottish minister Robert Murray McCheyne (1813–1843) died before he was thirty years old, and his short ministry was punctuated by severe illness. But it had a powerful impact on Scotland. He once made a statement that perhaps gives the key to his effectiveness: “My people’s greatest need is my personal holiness.”

Jesus also presents prayer as the secret of power in ministry. In answer to the disciples’ query about their failure to drive out an evil spirit from a boy, Jesus said, “This kind can come out only by prayer” (Mark 9:29). Someone has said that the wind of the Holy Spirit blows according to his will. Our job is to set the sails of our boats in a direction that can catch this wind. This is what happens when we pray: We become attuned to God and receive what used to be called unction or the “plus of the Spirit” in our ministries.

A side effect of living a life of prayer is that others are challenged to be prayer warriors. How important this ministry is in this busy world where people are easily tempted to drop extended times of prayer from their schedules! Observing Jesus at prayer prompted the disciples to ask him to teach them to pray: “One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples’ ” (Luke 11:1). In response Jesus taught them the Lord’s Prayer.

(2) Leaders have a priestly function in that they must pray for the movement and the people they lead. The prophet Samuel said, “As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by failing to pray for you” (1 Sam. 12:23). James says, “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). Given the power of prayer, then, the most important thing a leader can do is to pray for his or her people. Jesus gave the lead here. He spent long hours, sometimes entire nights, in prayer. A significant portion of that time must have been spent in intercession. The only time the Gospels record him speaking about his own prayer life is in these words: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:31–32a).

Moses spent forty days and forty nights in prayer interceding for his people and pleading to God to have mercy on them after they had sinned grievously (Deut. 9:18). We know how Joshua’s army floundered in battle when Moses slacked in praying for it (Ex. 17:9–13). Paul mentions praying for his recipients in ten of his thirteen letters. The biblical evidence, then, is undeniable that one of the most important tasks of leaders is to pray for their people.

(3) Leaders pray with those they lead. This includes pastoral prayers through visiting people at home, in the hospital, and at special events in their lives (James 5:14–15). Many Christians can look back to a time of need in their lives when they were visited by a pastor who prayed with them and mediated God’s strength through their presence and prayer. The leaders get to know their people through these visits; this greatly enhances the relevance of their preaching.

(4) Leaders should lead the community in prayer, as the apostles did when the Seven were chosen (v. 6). In Scripture, leaders often took the lead in calling the people to fast and pray.22 Their commitment to prayer helped keep it as a priority in the movement. When people realize that their leader is in constant touch with God, almost unconsciously the level of prayer is raised in the movement. Some years ago I had the privilege of spending a sabbatical teaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the United States. I served in the missions department, led by Dr. J. Christy Wilson Jr. Whenever I talked to him about a need or concern, he would immediately say, “Let’s pray about it,” and then immediately led in prayer. That habit has left an indelible impression on my life. It challenged me to be more of a leader in prayer.

Leadership and the ministry of the Word. God is the real leader of any Christian group. The leader’s primary task is to guide the movement along the will of God, which is most comprehensively recorded in the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16–17). Thus, one of a leader’s main responsibilities is to teach people the Word. For this reason, when Paul lists the qualifications for overseers in the church, the only ability related requirement he cites is that the person must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. 2 Tim. 2:2). The other fifteen requirements have to do with maturity, character, and reputation.

Paul also describes the comprehensive way in which he taught the Ephesian Christians: “I have not refrained from setting before you the whole will and purpose of God” (Acts 20:27).23 In a marvelous way the entire Bible harmonizes to give us the full breadth of God’s revelation. To miss out on some sections of the Bible is to miss out on key aspects of God’s truth. The New Testament assumes the foundation of the Old Testament and does not repeat a lot of what is found there. How important to have our people learn the full truth of God’s Word!

If we are to give people such a balanced diet, we ourselves must be fed on such a diet. That is why it is so important for every Christian leader to read the whole Bible through in a given time. The two outstanding textbooks on preaching by John Stott and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones both recommend that a leader go through the Bible in a year; both also mention the Bible Reading Calendar prepared by Robert Murray McCheyne.24 Slower readers may need to use another system that takes a longer time. When our lives have been influenced by all of Scripture, our ministries will also be influenced by the whole will and purpose of God.

Though the idea of studying the Word diligently may not be much in vogue today, this is an essential discipline for long-term effectiveness in ministry. One of the side effects of this discipline is that we are refreshed. The ministry, like all people-helping professions, can greatly strain the mind and body. It has been said that “ ‘burn-out’ may be more common in professions and business posts with a strong vocational element.”25 It has certainly become a serious problem in the Christian ministry.26 One key to avoiding this is time spent lingering in God’s Word. David said, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul” (Ps. 19:7).

We constantly face wounds as people reject our advice, attribute bad motives to our actions, or fail to “make it” despite out best efforts. Many in ministry today are bitter over the way they have been treated after all the sacrifices they made. One of the best ways of healing after receiving blows from a hostile world is to spend time in the Word. The psalmist says, “If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction” (Ps. 119:92). The Word also refreshes us as a source of great joy and pleasure. Just as entertainment refreshes us, so does the Word, but with much deeper and longer-lasting fruits. In Psalm 119 the psalmist claims nine times to delight in some aspect of the Word.

The leader’s call is not only to know and teach the Word but also to apply it to the challenges that people face. The letters of the New Testament are essentially applications of God’s truth to the challenges faced by their addressees. We are called to do the same today. To do this we must know both the Word and the world. Our knowledge of the latter comes by reading and viewing news, literature, and the arts and by observing what is happening around us. John Wesley was walking with one of his preachers when they came upon two women quarreling, using forceful language. The preacher suggested that they walk on, but Wesley checked him: “Stay, Sammy! Stay, and learn to preach!”27

How do we integrate what we learn from the Scriptures with what we learn of the world, and how do we apply the Word to the lives of our people? (1) Reading. When we read biographies and practical books, we learn how others respond to situations similar to those we face. (2) Hard thinking. We should put ourselves into the world of our people and see how the Scripture speaks to their experience. (3) I know of no better way than practicing the art of application. We do this in two ways. (a) We apply the Word to our own lives. (b) We do personal ministry and help others apply the Word to their lives. As we grapple with people’s (including our own) situations by being with them, listening to them, counseling them, and praying for them, we are forced to examine and apply what we know from the Scriptures. Application is not a science we learn by study; it is a skill that we acquire through practice. It should become second nature to us.

I will go so far as to say that those who do not do personal ministry will most likely be poor appliers of Scripture. They will invariably apply Scripture only in a way that is relevant to themselves, and their challenges may be different to those of the person on the street. For this reason, in our own ministry we do not invite as speakers at our programs those who are not engaged in personal ministry.

Criteria for selecting administrative workers. The three criteria used in the selection of administrative workers in the early church were a good reputation, being filled with wisdom, and being filled with the Spirit. When we appoint officers in the church—for example, treasurers and administrators of various church projects—we ought to look for these three qualifications.

Of these three, the third seems most frequently neglected. We tend to put people into positions of leadership in administrative matters if they are administratively capable (i.e., if they have wisdom) and have a high place in society, regardless of whether their lives give evidence of the fullness of the Spirit. Thus, we end up with rich and influential people on boards and project committees, but people with few spiritual qualifications. They may indeed bring in money and other resources. But later we complain about the undesirable influence they have on the movement. This pattern has become a serious problem in evangelical relief organizations today.

This practice is wrong on three counts. (1) It reflects an unbiblical separation of the sacred and the secular. When we say that for “secular-type jobs,” leaders do not need spiritual qualities, we are ignoring the fact that in the body of Christ everything we do is for the Lord. All service is spiritual in nature. Social service organizations that claim to be committed to holistic ministry should have holistic workers to do the work—those skilled in the project as well as having a vibrant relationship with God.

(2) Ignoring spiritual qualifications reflects a wrong idea of Christian community, the key of which is the spiritual unity we share as members of the body of Christ. As each person makes a contribution, the body of Christ moves forward. But we enter into this body through a spiritual tie with Christ. If we do not have such a tie, we cannot participate in body ministry.

(3) When we appoint unspiritual people to supposedly non-spiritual jobs, we forget that when people stay long in an organization, they often become senior staff, who, by virtue of their seniority, influence decisions that give the direction of the organization. It is better to wait until we can find the right people rather than do good work employing the wrong people. We may achieve a lot in terms of the volume of service, but in the long run it can take the church in a wrong direction.

Forging multicultural churches today. Does the multicultural nature of the New Testament church contradict the “homogenous unit principle,” which, in its extreme form, advocates separate churches for separate groups?28 We know that the Jerusalem church had two different language groups, which would have made a natural division. But the leaders did not divide the church. True, many of the church meetings were in houses, and presumably each of these groups operated in one language. But when the whole church assembled, the two groups met together. Beyond doubt the distribution of food was centralized.

In evangelism it is, I admit, usually beneficial to target a specific audience by presenting the message in a way that is particularly relevant to it. For this reason, we may need to have special strategies to reach the poor and the rich, the Jews and the Muslims, the Spanish-speaking and the English-speaking. But that betrays everything the Bible speaks about the unity of the body of Christ and about how Christ breaks barriers if we encourage major separations of congregations according to cultural divisions. In Corinth Paul strongly condemned the division of churches according to interest groups with the piercing question, “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:13).

Jesus told his disciples that the unity of Christians is a key to bringing the world to believe in Christ (John 17:21). Indeed, the breaking of human barriers is a key ingredient of the Christian message (cf. Eph. 2:11–22), and our failure to demonstrate it a key hindrance to evangelistic effectiveness with non-Christians. Many Buddhists have, sometimes sincerely and sometimes critically, brought up this issue when I have talked to them about Christ. Often the Muslims present the “brotherhood of Islam” as the answer to the segregation of Christianity.

We are desperately in need of a more powerful demonstration of our unity today. On the one hand, people should usually worship God in their heart language; on the other hand, they should affirm their unity in Christ despite cultural divisions and should develop the discipline of being enriched by other cultures.

We will face three major obstacles if we try to have multicultural churches. (1) Today’s pragmatism always looks at success in terms of measurable results. Christ would have us reach as large a number of people as we can (cf. comments on 4:1–22). Having monocultural churches, so many claim, helps achieve this rapidly. But biblical principles should take priority over “the success principle.”

(2) Today’s society also tries hard to avoid pain and unpleasantness, and multicultural churches usually experience pain as a result of misunderstandings and cultural insensitivity. Yet the benefits of multicultural churches are immense. We can learn much from each other. We can understand the problems of other types of people (e.g., the poor) better and thus help solve them if they are in our congregations.29 We can demonstrate that Christ can make people one. This is an important message in a world broken by ethnic, caste, and class strife.

(3) Established Christians are often unwilling to change practices in their church in order to welcome converts. Forms of worship, styles of music, the time of the worship service, and so on may need to be adjusted to accommodate non-Christians so that they will feel at home and be served better. Many Christians say they are committed to evangelism, but they do not want to pay the price of bringing in an evangelistic harvest. In actuality, they want to be comfortable. But God has not called us to comfort but to witness to everyone about Jesus Christ.

In other words, we need to explore how best to apply the biblical principle of the unity of the body amidst diversity. While we may need separate congregations because of language barriers, we can still have them as part of one “church.” We can meet together for worship and fellowship occasionally, even though such meetings may be tedious even after careful and creative planning. The church where I worship has two congregations—one English-speaking and the other Sinhala-speaking. We meet once a quarter for a combined, bilingual service. The Sinhala-speaking congregation to which we belong has educated members and illiterate members, wealthy members and desperately poor members. About 75 percent of them are converts from Buddhism. My wife and I cherish the enrichment that has come to us through having as close brothers and sisters people who are so culturally different from us.

There was great wisdom in the early church’s selection of some or all of the officials from the Grecian community. They knew well the needs and sensitivities of the aggrieved group. Often outsiders do not know how people of another group think, especially regarding things they are particularly sensitive to. Knowing this is important when dealing with minority groups or groups that have felt badly treated in the past. Sometimes those of other groups feel surprised that after all they have done, these people are still upset. They may have done a lot, but they may not have been sympathetic to sensitive areas.

This can be a serious problem in relations between Christian donors and receivers and between Christians from minority and majority communities. Some who desperately want the help offered by the powerful group willingly swallow their pride and remain silent. Others, who value their identity and principles, will speak up and are then unfortunately accused of being prejudiced and bitter. Many in the so-called “Third World” remain distressed that many well-meaning Christians in the West find it difficult to sense this problem and do something about it.

The response of the early church gives us several keys that will help solve this problem. They developed a listening ear that took the opinions of the other group seriously. They accepted responsibility for the error of overlooking the needs of the neglected group. They took immediate remedial action and included the people in finding a solution to the problem. And they appointed people from the aggrieved party to help administer the program where the problems had cropped up. There is much wisdom here for Christians interested in missions and in forging relationships with believers of other cultures.

Original Meaning

The Solution (6:2–6)

THE APOSTLES DID not focus attention on the complaining attitude toward the leadership. Nor did they talk about the priority of the spiritual and the relative unimportance of earthly food, as some may have done. There was a genuine problem, and the best way to quell doubts about prejudice was to solve the problem first. Thus, the apostles made an administrative decision. Thereby they not only averted a serious crisis of disunity, but also led the church to take a significant leap forward in terms of organizational structure. Though Luke does not use the word “deacon” here to describe the Seven,5 this decision laid the foundation for the diaconal order, which, while taking different forms in the history of the church, has rendered great service in mediating Christ’s love to needy people. Barclay observes, “It is extremely interesting to note that the first office-bearers to be appointed were chosen not to talk but for practical service.”6

The procedure adopted in choosing the Seven is instructive. The complaint came from the Grecians, “so the Twelve gathered all the disciples together” (v. 2). The entire group was given the task of choosing seven officials (v. 3). The apostles insisted that their own main task was to concentrate on “the ministry of the word” (v. 4 adds “prayer”). Therefore seven people had to be chosen to oversee the work of distributing food (vv. 2–3). The choice of seven may have been to correspond to “the Jewish practice of setting up boards of seven men for particular duties.”7

The apostles laid down three qualifications for these men—“men of good repute” (REB) and “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (v. 3a). We do not know how these seven were selected. “Choose” (episkeptomai) means “look out for.”8 Since the word sometimes means “visit,” J. A. Alexander thinks that the members were to “visit, or inspect with a view to discovering the necessary qualifications.”9 In any case, once the choice was made, the apostles said, “We will turn this responsibility over to them” (v. 3b). Chalmer Faw is probably right in suggesting that what happened was that the new leaders were “nominated by the group but appointed by the apostles.”10

“This proposal pleased the whole group,” and they chose seven men, all of whom have Greek names. This does not necessarily mean that they were all Hellenists, since “most Jews in the ancient world had three names—a Jewish, a Greek, and a Roman name—and used one or the other depending on the occasion.”11 But there are other reasons to conclude that “all seven appear to have been Hellenists.”12 We know for sure that Nicolas was a Hellenist, since he was a “convert to Judaism”; Stephen was one too, for his ministry was in a Hellenistic synagogue (6:9). Below we will discuss the wisdom of appointing Hellenists among the Seven.

The disciples then “presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them” (v. 6). There we see the beginnings of church leaders laying hands on believers and commissioning them for specific tasks. The church has developed various orders of worship for such functions and given them names, such as commissioning, ordination, and induction services.