I was too busy putting in a sprinkler system at The Capranica Villa yesterday to be able to read or post anything related to the blogosphere. So here’s what I should have posted yesterday on deacons:
An Examination of Acts 6:1-6 in Regard to Deacon Ministry
Objections and Answers
Acts 6:1-6[1] is a passage widely discussed as to whether it has any direct or even implicit reference to the ministry of deacons. On the one hand, opponents to the view that deacon ministry is in view in this passage note that the noun diakonos is never used of the seven men chosen to assist the Apostles in the church in Jerusalem. Furthermore, some would argue that there is no indication in the book of Acts that this group of seven continued to exist in Jerusalem or even outside of Jerusalem once the initial complaint that created their need was satisfied (Acts 6:1). Also, while the book of Acts mentions elders on several occasions, the book never mentions a group of deacons. A further mark that some use to indicate that deacon ministry is not found in Acts 6 is that when the church in Antioch sent famine relief to the Jerusalem church, mention is made that it was brought to the elders of the church, not the deacons. Lastly, it is noted that neither Stephen or Philip continued in their role among the Seven of assisting the Apostles in caring for the needs of the widows in the Jerusalem church.[2]
Adequate answers can be given to these objections. First, though the noun diakonos is not used in the Acts account, related forms are used. Diakonia is used in 6:1 to refer to the daily “service” for the Jerusalem Christian widows, and the verb diakonein is used in 6:2 to refer to the widow’s ministry as serving tables. It could be surmised that before the commissioning of the Seven, the Twelve (apostles) were actually handling the daily care of the widows. This was not viewed as pleasing to the Twelve, because they would have to neglect the Word of God in order to give themselves to the “ministry of the tables” (6:2). Instead, they would rather give themselves to the service (diakonia) of the Word (6:4). This writer agrees that Acts 6:1-6 did not create at that point in the church’s history an official body of deacons, yet, the ground-work was laid. It could also be noted that the Apostles are never mentioned to be elders in Acts 6, nor are they in the remainder of the book of Acts. As the Church grew and the number of Apostles began to decline, new apostles were not appointed to take their place in the various churches, but elders/overseers/pastors, were installed into such oversight and shepherding roles once held by the Apostles. There is no difficulty seeing in Acts 6:1-6 the Apostles and their ministry as precursors to future pastors/elders/overseers. And when one considers the linguistic and functional link the Twelve had with the Seven, there should equally be no difficulty in seeing the Seven as precursors to the later role of deacons. To simply state that the noun diakonos is not used is hardly sufficient ground to suppose that Acts 6:1-6 is not the historical indication of the emergence of the future ministry of deacons.
Secondly, there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic that the ministry of the Seven did not continue past Acts 6. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. It is illogical to assume that the “daily” need of the widows did not continue after Acts 6. Furthermore, the phrase “the Seven” is used later in the book of Acts in reference to Philip. This specific demarcation denotes that this group was viewed as an official body, just as “the Twelve” were an official ministering group (Acts 6:2). Simply because Philip is marked as “an evangelist” in Acts 21:8, does not mean that he was not also still one of “the Seven,”[3] or that the Jerusalem widow ministry, established in Acts 6, was no longer being conducted. Nor does Stephen’s preaching role (Acts 6:8-7:60) mean that the group which was assisting the Apostles with the widow’s ministry ceased to exist. How do we know that the other five did not continue in this role and that Philip and Stephen were replaced by other men, as God moved them on to other aspects of ministry? Did the Apostles, or the elders who later took their place, cease to need to give their greatest energies to prayer and the ministry of the Word after the occasion of Acts 6?
Third, deacons do not have to be mentioned in any remaining portion of the book of Acts in order for Acts 6 to be the historical marker of where the ministry was eventually derived. Acts is the historical record of how the church began and developed from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and into the uttermost parts of the world (Acts 1:8). Acts is not a full description concerning ecclesiology or the later development of the maturing church. Acts 6 is reflective of a church that was rapidly growing and was in existence for some time (Acts 2:41-47; 5:32-37).[4] Once the growing church in Jerusalem had a significant need for some to assist the existing leaders in caring for the widows, such a ministry was formed. Thus, the book of Acts indicates throughout the remainder of its pages the emergence of new congregations. Acts does not focus upon any one congregation, especially longstanding churches, and the details of their church ecclesiology.[5] Therefore, with the book of Acts describing the beginning of multiple congregations and spending little time discussing to any great detail the ecclesiological structure of these congregations, it would not be necessary to mention a body of deacons in these churches. It is of interesting note that in regard to the new-found congregations in Crete, Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders but no mention of deacons is made. This is another indicator that deacons were the product of a more mature congregation that developed diaconal ministry only after a solid pastoral leadership was in place.
Fourth, simply because the church in Jerusalem had elders who received the Antiochian love offering brought by Paul and Barnabas’ for the needy saints in Jerusalem is not a definite indication that there were no deacons in the church there (Acts 11:29-30). This merely indicates that the church in Antioch was sending the offering in charge of Barnabas and Saul to be received by the elders in Jerusalem. Are we to assume then that the need that was present in Acts 6 for the Apostles to have some to assist them in the distribution of funds and food to the needy was now not needed in Acts 11 for the elders? Acts 6 does not necessarily indicate the funds given to the church in Jerusalem were not received by the Apostles,[6] but it does describe that the distribution of such funds and support was handled by “the Seven.”
[5] Even the mention of elders in the already well established church in Ephesus in Acts 20:17 is no real indication of what the entire ecclesiastical structure of the Ephesian church consisted. All that can be said for certain from the Acts account is that the church had a body of elders, which is also confirmed in Paul’s first letter to Timothy who was eventually sent to Ephesus well after Paul’s Miletus visit (1 Timothy 1:5; 4:14). What is also abundantly clear from Paul’s letter to Timothy while he was at Ephesus is that they did possess a body of deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13).
[6] Acts 4:37 indicates that the gifts given by the congregation to meet the needs of the needy were laid down at the Apostles’ feet. There is no reason to doubt that this was still the procedure in and after Acts 6. Acts 6 does not address the reception of gifts for the needy as much as it addresses the distribution of help to the needy.
