The Seven in Acts 6 as a Ministry Team

By Phillip W. Sell

[Phillip W. Sell is Director of Supervised Ministries and Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.]

Local churches often encounter problems and opportunities that require Christians to work together to accomplish a ministry mission. These groups of collaborating Christians are often called “ministry teams,” although other designations are sometimes used. Literature on ministry teams has proliferated in recent decades[1] with helpful insight about teaming coming from the business world, where much manufacturing is done through work teams. While much of this insight from business environments is beneficial, it leaves many Christians suspicious that ministry teams are another way in which North American churches are following culture blindly. If Acts 6:1-7 is correctly understood, however, it becomes manifest that the basic elements of ministry team formation are modeled in an exemplary fashion by the apostles in the selection and empowerment of the Seven.

Throughout much of church history many have seen this passage as referring to the formation of the office of deacon. Pelikan asserts, “The selection of the seven deacons, with the allocation to them of certain duties that had previously fallen on the apostles themselves, has long been interpreted as the institution of the traditional threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon, with, at least eventually, various gradations of these offices such as archbishop, protopresbyter, subdeacon and the like.”[2]

Pelikan acknowledges that interpreting Acts 6:1-7 as referring to deacons probably did not become normative until the late second or third century.[3] This pattern of interpretation persisted through the Reformation and well into the modern era. However, critical exegetes in recent years are reluctant to identify the Seven in Acts 6 as deacons or even protodeacons, simply referring to them as “the Seven.” The thesis of this article is that the ministry of the Seven should be seen as a pattern for temporary ministry-team formation[4] rather than a passage that provides a pattern of ministry for the ongoing office of deacons in the church. This does not deny that the office of deacon in the local church is legitimate. The point is that this passage should not be used to support that office.

A Brief Explanation Of Acts 6:1-7

The “bookends” for this passage are two verses that comment on the rapid expansion of the church at Jerusalem under the direction of the twelve apostles. Verse 1 states that “in those days . . . the number of disciples was increasing,” and verse 7 records that “the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly.”[5] Verses 2-6 record an event that could have derailed the expansion of the church and created a deep rift between the Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews in the church. The church in Jerusalem was experiencing a growing pain. The apostles’ response to this crisis demonstrates wisdom that can be instructive to the church today.

“The Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food” (v. 1). The Hebraic Jews were natives of Palestine who spoke a Semitic language, probably Aramaic. The apostles were no doubt identified with these Hebrews. The Grecian Jews were Jews of the Diaspora who spoke Greek and had been raised in Hellenistic culture. Tension between Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews in Judaism was now threatening to create a rift in the wonderful unity created by the Holy Spirit. “Hebraic Jews had a prejudicial sense of superiority over Grecian Jews because of their own birthplace and language. Lack of communication between the groups also fostered suspicion.”[6] “Greek-speaking Jews, sensitive to the presumptions of superiority of the Aramaic-speaking Jews might well suppose this to be the ground of their second-class treatment.”[7] “In the Jewish world tensions existed between the Grecian Jews and the Aramaic-speaking Jews; tragically these strains were brought into the church.”[8] Thus the tension recorded in Acts 6 may have been over more than an adequate system of food distribution. Instead the problem was the Grecian Jews’ perception of prejudicial treatment. The Seven were selected to deal with rumors of prejudice, not just food distribution.

From its earliest days in Jerusalem the church had had to devise a way of providing for the needs of its own people. The first snapshot of meeting such needs is found in Acts 2:44-45. Christians pooled their resources to meet each others’ needs, some even selling their possessions. The apostles are not mentioned, but in 4:32-37 there seems to be a more formal system. Those who sold property, including lands and houses (v. 34), to care for the needs of the believers in the church “brought the money from the sales” and laid it at the feet of the apostles “and it was distributed to anyone as he had need” (v. 35). Apparently the apostles had oversight of this distribution to the needy, which of course would include the widows. Out of this charitable arrangement arose the complaint of prejudicial treatment.

The apostles took the accusation seriously. They called the multitude of disciples together and acknowledged that it would not be desirable for them to neglect “prayer and the ministry [διακονία] of the word” (v. 4) “to wait on [διακονεῖν] tables” (v. 2). The Greek words used in verses 2 and 4 show that the apostles recognized that both activities are “ministry.” But they needed to focus more on the ministry of the Word and prayer, while at the same time not neglecting the ministry of food distribution. The continual growth of the church seems to have made the distribution of goods to the needy a large task that needed attention so as not to disrupt the unity of the church. This division of labor is situational not paradigmatic for the church for all times. It reflects their practical situation. The only authorities on the life of Jesus were the apostles. With many new converts there was a great need for the apostles to instruct them concerning the life and person of Jesus and His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. At the same time the growth of the church resulted in an increase in the material needs of the believers. People other than the apostles needed to oversee the distribution of food, especially now that the issue had potentially become divisive.

The apostles implored the disciples to select seven from among them to oversee the distribution of food to widows. They were to select men “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (v. 3). Why were there such high standards for the distribution of food? Because their mission was not primarily about food distribution, but about accusations of prejudice and unfair treatment. Wisdom and the control of the Holy Spirit were essential if the Seven were to dispel the accusations. Of interest is the fact that all of the names are Greek, not Hebrew, and one of the seven, Nicolas of Antioch, was not Jewish by birth but was a proselyte. Probably they were all Greek-speaking.[9] They were no doubt sensitive to the needs of the Grecian Jews.

The proposal to select seven pleased the entire group of assembled disciples (v. 5). After the Seven were chosen, they were brought to the Twelve, who laid hands on them and prayed for them, thus commissioning them for their ministry (v. 6). The text gives no progress report on the ministry of the Seven, but one can assume that the report in verse 7 of the thriving increase in the number of believers would imply that the murmuring about prejudicial distribution of food had subsided under the able ministry of the Seven. As to the duration of the ministry of the Seven, this too is unclear, although it was probably not for a long time. Acts 7 recounts the testifying of Stephen (one of the Seven) and his martyrdom for that testimony. Chapter 8 indicates that when a persecution of the church in Jerusalem followed, all but the apostles were scattered into Judea and Samaria. That same chapter records that another of the Seven, Philip, was evangelizing in Samaria.

Expositors have debated the significance of the apostles’ laying hands on the Seven. Was this an act of ordination to some kind of lifetime office or a commissioning to a specific, short-term mission? First Timothy 4:14 refers to the laying on of hands in ordination. Also the majority of New Testament passages that mention the laying on of hands point to this gesture in relation to healing. The remaining instances of laying on of hands refer either to conferring spiritual gifts (Acts 8:17-19; 19:6; 2 Tim. 1:6) or to the transferring of responsibility with blessing.[10] The apostles were not ordaining the Seven to a lifetime of ministry, but were authorizing them to act in their stead and were confirming the selection of the congregation. The Seven were publicly being empowered and commissioned.

Acts 13:1-3 provides an interesting parallel. The Holy Spirit conveyed to the spiritual leaders of the church in Antioch that they should “set apart . . . Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (v. 2). Then after they “fasted and prayed,” they laid hands on them and sent them off (v. 3). This is clearly not ordination, for Barnabas and Saul were already experienced church leaders. Instead it was a commissioning to a God-given task with the blessing of the church. The commissioning in Acts 6 was similar, and thus should be interpreted as a commissioning and blessing of the Seven to their ministry task and not seen as an ordination to an ongoing ministry office.

Were The Seven Deacons?

Many writers say this text explains the origin of the diaconate in local churches. Those who argue for this view provide little exegetical data from Acts 6:1-7 to support their position. They seem to argue anachronistically from passages that indicate that the church had an ongoing diaconate (Phil. 1:1) with specific qualifications (1 Tim. 3:8-13).[11] While the term διάκονος indicates that the ministry of deacons is that of being “servants,” the Bible gives no specifics as to the focus of their ministry unless Acts 6:1-7 provides the church with such a pattern. Those who view the passage this way tend to see it as giving guidelines to an ongoing church office. Fraser’s arguments are typical of those who hold this position.

A question remains which is not answered by this passage: Were the circumstances confronting the church at this time such that this is to be considered a unique not-to-be-repeated event? Put differently, the question is simply, “Is the office of deacon permanent?” The church has from the beginning understood that the office of deacon is a permanent office, and has supported this position in two ways: First, Paul indicates this to be the case. More than twenty-five years after the events of Acts 6, Paul wrote to the “saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1b). Later, Paul was careful to give Timothy instruction about the qualifications of the person who might be called to fill this office (1 Tim. 3:8-13). The nature of Paul’s instruction here is that the office of deacon is surely represented to be as permanent as the office of elder.[12]

While one can agree that the office of deacon is an ongoing office, Acts 6:1-7, in this writer’s opinion, does not address that topic. Instead this passage addresses a unique situation, which can help churches today see how to respond to unique ministry opportunities and challenges. Bock writes,

In sum, this unit shows the community using its own people to solve its own problems. The community hears the complaint, owns up to the problem, allows those closest to it to solve it, delegates the authority to get it done, and then goes to work. The issue is not denied or papered over but confronted directly as a community concern. As the church was growing it was encountering growing pains. It was adapting to the needs the new situation produced. . . . The solution of the community showed that in the midst of growth, new problems sometimes require fresh structures to cope with them.[13]

Why should Acts 6:1-7 not be viewed as addressing the formation of the first deaconate? First, διάκονος is not used in the passage. If Luke was seeking to designate the Seven as deacons, one would expect to see the word used. He did use διακονία, a general term for “ministry,” but he did not use it to designate the work of the Seven. Διακονεῖν is used to refer to the “waiting on tables,” and διακονία refers to the Twelve’s ministry of the Word.

Second, this view wrongly relegates the role of deacons to a nonspiritual position, to a position inferior to the more spiritual role of elders (usually seen as analogous to the Twelve). Elders are to focus on the matters of worship and the Word and judicial issues of oversight and discipline.[14] These ministries of the Word and prayer are viewed as more “spiritual” than the ministry of the Seven, whose work deals with the physical, mundane, and temporal needs of the church and community. The deacons and their service to physical needs are placed under the authority of those who serve the church’s “spiritual” needs.[15]

In Matthew 20:24-28 Jesus stated that leadership is to be based on servanthood. When He said, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (v. 26), He used the word διάκονος. Serving is to be the essence of leadership. Through His teaching and examples (washing feet, healing the sick, feeding the multitudes, etc.) Jesus did not separate the more spiritual facets of the ministry from the physical needs of people. Badcock pointedly describes the ecclesiological travesty that has resulted from misinterpreting and misapplying Acts 6:1-7.

It goes almost without saying, of course, that this vision of leadership, pioneered by Christ himself, proved too much for the church to live with. Increasingly, models of ministry were developed in abstraction from the servanthood of Christ, attempting instead to ground the church’s ministry in Christ’s heavenly status as the eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father, the bearer of his authority and of his glory. This is reflected in what is arguably one of the greatest tragedies of church history: the separation that has been introduced between diakonia and other forms of ministry. The threefold distinction between bishops, priests, and deacons is one clear example of this, but one of the worst appears in a variety of Protestant traditions that define deacons as those ministers who are given responsibility over temporal matters. The basis for this is the passage in Acts 6 in which seven “deacons” are appointed to fulfill such tasks, in clear distinction from what the preachers, and the evangelists, the apostles, were doing.[16]

The author once heard of a pastor who was starting at a new church. He was forewarned that the church had a long history of tension between the elders and deacons. During his first month in the pastorate the deacons announced their annual workday to spruce up the church facilities and to do projects that could not normally be cared for by the custodial staff’s routines. When the pastor showed up on the deacons’ workday, the deacons were shocked. They could not remember any of the pastoral staff ever participating in their workdays. The pastor reported that the deacons seemed to relish assigning him projects and instructing him in the use of power tools. During his tenure as pastor many remarked at how improved his relationship with the deacons was, compared to that of his predecessors.

This division of labor, which relegates deacons to meeting temporal needs but not proclaiming or teaching God’s Word, is not supported by the Book of Acts. Two of the Seven—Stephen and Philip—were engaged in preaching the Word of God. Stephen performed miraculous signs and was teaching and defending the faith (6:8-10). This eventually led to his being taken forcefully before the Sanhedrin to defend his views (vv. 11-15). Most of Acts 7 records the remarkable speech that he made in recounting Israel’s history and linking it to their rejection of Christ. This resulted in his death under the supervision of Saul (7:54-8:1), soon to become the apostle Paul. Acts 8:1-4a records the persecution that scattered the disciples but not the apostles throughout Judea and Samaria. Verses 4b–8 give an account of Philip’s ministry in a Samaritan city which included performing miracles and proclaiming Christ with great impact.

Thus Acts 6:1-7 should not be viewed as recording the work of the first deacons. Instead it should be viewed as recording a unique solution to a unique problem faced by the church in Jerusalem. The passage, however, does give guidance on how to address some of the unique challenges and opportunities churches face, especially when those challenges call for believers to work together as a team.

Insights Into Team Ministry

The example of the apostles addressing a ministry problem that required teamwork models many of the best practices identified by those who study team development. Four generally acknowledged principles of teamwork are seen in Acts 6:1-7.

The first principle of teamwork is clarifying the mission or purpose for the team. Anyone who has worked on ministry teams knows that sometimes teams are confused about their mission or purpose and that such confusion can quickly derail the team’s unity and ministry. MacMillan states this principle succinctly. “The single most important ingredient in a team success is a clear, common, compelling task. The power of a team flows out of each team member’s alignment to its purpose. The task of any team is to accomplish an objective and to do so at exceptional levels of performance. Teams are not ends in themselves but rather means to an end. Therefore, high performance teams will be purpose directed, ultimately judged by their results.”[17]

The Seven understood that the mission of their team was to assure the equitable distribution of food to the Grecian Jewish widows who were part of the Jerusalem church. This mission was also known to the apostles and the people.

A second principle of teamwork is that the team had crystal-clear roles.[18] Team members often have differing functions based on the contributions they can make to the accomplishment of the team’s vision. This division of labor is not explicitly addressed in Acts 6; however, a division of labor and distinguishing roles between the ministry of the Seven and the ministry of the apostles is evident. The apostles had the clear role of ministry of the Word and prayer, and the Seven had the clear role of distributing food equitably.

When a new ministry team is formed, it is crucial to define its ministry roles in distinction to the roles of other ministry teams. If the ministry roles of two teams overlap, each team may feel that the other is encroaching on its own domain of ministry. Or there may be gaps in ministry as each team assumes that the other is responsible for an area that neither team addresses. The apostles and the Seven clearly defined their separate roles.

A third principle of teamwork is recruitment of team members who have the requisite abilities and character qualities necessary to accomplish the mission. While Acts 6 does not list the differing gifts and talents needed to accomplish the mission of the Seven,[19] it does address the character qualities necessary for the team members. As noted earlier, high character qualifications were necessary. The men who were chosen were “known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom” (v. 3). As previously noted, the Greek names of the Seven may also indicate that it was important that a language barrier not exist between them and the Grecian Jewish widows. The apostles demonstrated sensitivity to these issues.

The fourth principle of teamwork found in Acts 6 is the need to enable the team to act.[20] Once the mission of a church team is clearly defined and qualified people are recruited for the team, the team should be given the authority to do their ministry unimpeded by unnecessary red tape and micromanaging. The apostles did two things to assist the Seven. First, the apostles appealed to the Jerusalem congregation to put forth those whom they would like to have serve them, assuming that they met the qualifications put forth by the apostles (vv. 2-3). This empowered the Seven to act because those who would receive their ministry had had a part in selecting them. It is difficult to complain about the ministry of those one has helped to select. A second way the apostles enabled the Seven to act was through the public laying on of hands. As noted earlier, this was probably a form of commissioning and blessing the Seven as they embarked on their task. The public nature of this laying on of hands probably also conveyed a modicum of apostolic authority. That is, the Seven were empowered to act on the apostles’ behalf and for the good of the church. The Seven thus had the authority to carry out their mission.

Conclusion

While Acts 6:1-7 is hardly a comprehensive discussion of ministry teams, it does demonstrate sensitivity to key issues of church teamwork. These insights show that ministry teams are not simply recent inventions from the business world. However, to see these principles clearly, one need not view the Seven as deacons. Of course the Scriptures do speak of deacons, but Acts 6:1-7 should not be used to define that role.

Local churches are constantly challenged by cultural and community changes that require flexibility of response. The interpretation offered here allows greater flexibility for churches to appoint ministry teams for a limited duration to deal with various needs and opportunities.

Notes

1. Examples of the current emphasis on ministry teams include George Cladis, Leading the Team-based Church (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999); Wayne Cordeiro, Doing Church as Team (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2001); Larry Gilbert, Team Ministry (Lynchburg, VA: Church Growth Institute, 1987); and Pat MacMillan, The Performance Factor: Unlocking the Secrets of Teamwork (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001).
2. Jaroslav Pelican, Acts, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), 91.
3. Ibid., 93.
4. Richard B. Rackham notes that the ministry of the Seven was of “short duration” and “unique” in mission (The Acts of the Apostles [1901; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978], 86). Stanley D. Toussaint rejects the notion that the Seven were deacons or elders, and he sees them as a temporary ministry group addressing a specific need (“Acts,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996], 367-68).
5. All biblical quotations are from the New International Version, unless noted otherwise.
6. William J. Larkin Jr., Acts, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 99.
7. Norman Nagel, “The Twelve and the Seven in Acts 6 and the Needy,” Concordia Journal 31 (April 2005): 117.
8. Toussaint, “Acts,” 367.
9. There is no certainty that these Greek names mean that the Seven were Hellenistic Jews from somewhere other than Palestine (C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles [New York: Clark, 2002], 88).
10. This follows the view of Armin J. Panning, “Acts 6: The ‘Ministry’ of the Seven,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 93 (Winter 1996): 15.
11. In the Gospels διάκονος most often refers to literal “servants” of another person and in the Epistles as a nontechnical “servant” of God. Only in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13 is διάκονος used as a technical term for an office in the church.
12. Richard Fraser, “Office of Deacon,” Covenant Seminary Review 11 (spring 1985): 16.
13. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 262-63.
14. Fraser, “Office of Deacon,” 16-19.
15. This continues the split between the sacred and the secular that has blighted Christianity in the West.
16. Gary D. Badcock, The Way of Life: A Theology of Christian Vocation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998), 98.
17. MacMillan, The Performance Factor, 35.
18. Ibid., 61-89.
19. While there has been great speculation from Jewish history and culture as to why the apostles specified seven people to be on this team, it is certainly a workable and close-to-ideal number of people to be on a team.
20. “Enabling others to act” is a crucial leadership quality (James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Christian Reflections on the Leadership Challenge [San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004], 38).