Kevin J. Hughes 10/11/2017

 

 

In Acts 6:1-7 an interesting story takes place. In it we learn of the formation of the Deaconate. That is to say, the Apostles knew that it was not right that they should be taken from the office of prayer and preaching the Word, and so they had the Jerusalem church appoint seven noble, pious men to handle the functions which would have come between them and their sacred office. There is much that we can learn from this important chapter, however, before we can dig deep and understand the important elements of the text, we must first establish the plain meaning, and see the most basic application for those today. In other words, before any text can be examined with depth, so as to see all of the necessary and proper applications that can be made, it must first be shown what is the most immediately visible and necessary application, for, if someone is not pursuing that which is immediately revealed, how can they be expected to follow that which is not as clearly shown? For this reason, this essay will seek to prove that Acts chapter 6 does in fact demonstrate both the need for, and creation of the Deaconate in the most Holy Church of Jesus Christ our Lord. This will be shown by first noting the dissenting opinion and addressing some of the arguments thereof, and then by noting the arguments in favor of the position from the text, and from those who have gone before this generation in faith.

The first step in this discussion must be to discuss the dissenting opinion. This is because, as the Apostle Paul says, it is good that disagreements should arise as they will show who among us is approved. And the wise man affirms that iron sharpens iron. This is why a wise man once told the author of this essay that it is crucial to read broadly, and always challenges the base of study. For instance, asking what Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc theologians’ thoughts this author has himself treasured of late. In that spirit of humility, it is crucial to examine the other side, especially if this can be done while addressing the points made by sound teachers who happen to disagree on a detail of the faith. Whenever possible, this is where the particular author of this essay likes to begin, finding the people most sound who disagree with him. Some issues do not afford this opportunity, as some teachings are not held by sound theologians by definition, for instance, someone who rejects the doctrine of election, or of the divinity of Christ, is by nature unsound, and therefore the principle cannot be applied in the same way. However, this issue in-particular offers a wealth of great resources on both sides.

With that in mind, why is it often said that Acts 6 does not form the basis of the modern Deaconate? Well, John Polhill argues that the Greek word for Deacon (diaconos) does not appear in the text (Polhill, 1992 ). This could be because this word technically means servant, and so a similar word with the same Greek root is used, as Polhill himself grants (Ibid). On the face of it this argument seems fair enough, if the word normally used for Deacon—and in fact, the word from which we get the word “Deacon”—does not appear in the text, how can people like John Calvin affirm that it is taught there? Well, there are a couple of things to consider about this argument. First, this if this is the start of the Deaconate than it is by nature the very first appearance of that office. So, it is possible that this office, having never before been, was not yet named at this point. So, while the title of Deacon itself may have come later, the office was here created. This would seem to make sense, given the fact that the Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary—which remains neutral on whether or not the Deaconate was formed in Acts 6—affirms that at the very least, this is the instance in which Christians first discovered the need for separate offices (Various Authors, 2015).

Not only this, but given the fact that Polhill seems, in most ways, to be a sound exegete, the author of this essay finds it hard to believe that he would say that we should not say that God is Trinitarian, though the Words Trinity, One Substance, and Coeternal were all added to the Christian vocabulary later, and none is found in Scripture itself. For as all sound teachers affirm, thought the word Trinity is not used, the concept was taught, and even a cursory examination of history will show that the Christians of Nicea, Calcedon, and the other Ecumenical Councils, did not invent these ideas, but merely clarified their language so as to refute heretics. The concepts they taught were plainly biblical, it was only the words they used to describe them that were new. So, in this instance, though Acts chapter 6 does not use the word Deacon, it certainly teaches the concept. This is affirmed by the aforementioned, neutral, Holman Commentary as well as John MacArthur (MacArthur), who also does not affirm Acts 6 as the creation of the Deaconate. Therefore, though it is not yet using the word Deacon—which would not appear in Acts, but later in the Epistles—it most certainly teaches the concept, a point on which most parties seem to be in agreement.

There is another argument however, this is the one employed by MacArthur in his study Bible (Ibid on Acts 6:2-4). In it, he argues that the Deaconate is not shown here because of two specific men whom the Jerusalem church appointed to this office, Stephen and Philip. Both of whom MacArthur states are shown later to be, “Evangelists and not Deacons.” This argument is rather odd to the author of this essay, who has in his ministry held both of those two offices, having been both a Deacon and Evangelist at the same time, and later a Pastor. It would seem that the office of Deacon, and that of Evangelist are not mutually exclusive offices. Just as being a husband does not negate the possibility of being an office manager, or more relevantly, being a Pastor does not mean one cannot be a Professor at a College, and it most certainly doesn’t mean that one cannot be an evangelist. Now, it should be admitted that this author has never read a MacArthur book, or listened to a sermon by him in which he states that someone can be both a Pastor and Evangelist at the same time, however, given the fact that this is the view held by most, it seems plausible that this is his view. Granting this, it would seem strange if someone could be both the teacher and shepherd of souls, and also an evangelist, yet be incapable of handling the day to day functions that the pastor should not be bound by, and be incapacitated from it. For this reason, it seems strange that MacArthur launches this argument, when in so many ways it seems like the very type of argument he elsewhere rejects. With those arguments out of the way, it is now expedient to examine some proofs of the doctrine of the Deaconate.

Having examined some of the arguments against the thought that Acts 6 is the beginning of the Deaconate, what some reasons to affirm this truth? Well, for starters, it seems to be the plain reading of Acts 6. Look at the text of Acts 6, the Hellenists come to the Apostles over a complaint, one which both Matthew Henry and John Calvin suggest came from old grievances, and the divisions that sadly mark the fallenness of men, even saints (Henry, 1706) (Calvin, 1559). Polhill notes that these grievances may not have arisen because of divisiveness, but rather because of language barrier (Polhill, 1992 ), that is to say, the Hebrews may not have overlooked the Hellenists on purpose, but perhaps there was a language barrier that made the distribution more difficult to manage with such a large and growing Church. It’s hard to say what truly caused the problem, but this author suspects that some of both these points was happening.

In any case, it is less important why the problem arose as it is how the Apostle respond. That is to say, the Apostles do not take charge of the issue themselves. There are two immediate temptations that the wisdom of the Apostles avoids. The first is the temptation to simply abandon the daily distribution. This would have been a grave and horrible mistake. Calvin notes that Satan seems to take a course in which he first causes difficulty for good institutions, then weaves his corruptions into them, then makes noble persons detest such institutions, and finally causes even the righteous to do away with them all together (Calvin, 1559). This pattern is visible throughout church history, but the Apostles wisely head this off at the pass by, as Calvin puts it, “Doing away with the problem without wholly eliminating the institution.” (Calvin 1559 Author’s paraphrase). Note also, the Apostles could have micro-managed the whole affair, but as Calvin (Ibid) and the Pulpit Commentary, both discuss, this would have been unacceptable, for it would have taken them away from the necessary office of preaching, teaching, and prayer. This is important, for the Apostles themselves appointed Pastors (Bishops as they called them) to carry on their work (St. Ignatius, Late First to Early Second Century). This holds great application therefore, as Pastors of churches should not be entangled in the secular affairs related to those churches, for instance, Pastors should not be entangled in the property, the bills, or the maintenance of the church, this is the deacon’s job, pastors, and even lay elders, should be devoted to worship and teaching. Now, this does not excuse churches from having alms, and distribution. As this author has often discussed, it is the duty of the church to provide for her members, and we ought to strive to create a situation in which there are no poor among us. In fact, it was for this very purpose that the office of the Deaconate was made, so that the distribution to and provision for the saints could always be made, yet they would not burden the Apostles themselves, who ought never be drawn from prayer, study, and proclamation of the Sacred Word of Truth (Calvin 1559).

It should be noted that of the sources that are neutral or even opposed to the thought that Acts 6 forms the creation of the Deaconate, most still affirm that this is the beginning of the separation of offices, and the demonstration of the need for the office of Deacon (Various Authors, 2015) (MacArthur). It should also be noted of course, that many of the commentaries which support this idea use this very argument as the catalyst for their reasoning that this is the beginning of said office (Henry, 1706) (Various Authors, 1990). It is also interesting that Calvin, who usually notes opposing views, does not note the opposition to this claim. While this may be an argument from silence, it is still interesting that if the view existed in his day that the office of the Deaconate was not established in Acts 6, he was not aware of it. If in fact the idea did not exist in his day in any form, should this not at least give Christians today pause when considering the theory? After all, as Charles Spurgeon said, “I have come to note that in the main, if an idea is new, it is not true.” (Author paraphrase). So, a plain reading of the text would seem to indicate that a distinction of offices was made at this time, a distinction between the office of the Apostles, which would be carried on by the lesser teaching authority of the Pastorate, and the office of service, and the tasks given to the ones in said office would later be carried on the Deaconate. It would therefore seem strange to conclude anything other than that which Calvin concludes, which is that this is the formation of the office of the Deaconate.

Someone may respond, “But if the office of Deacon is so important, why did the Holy Spirit not simply command the Apostles to call the people to this? Would this not have been easier than the Apostles being forced to respond to the groans of the multitude.” Calvin however anticipates this response most perfectly, and notes that it was actually more perfect that the office should be established in this way than in any other (Calvin 1559). Consider, had the Apostles commanded this upon the people before the need was demonstrated they may not have taken the charge seriously, or understood the gravity of the situation. Had the Apostles simply been shown the need of the Deaconate, there would have been no example for us today of the danger of disobeying this charge. Yet God, in His all wise counsel, allowed trial to befall His people, not to stifle, but to strengthen them. In this way, the people realized the need of the Deaconate, and were thus both ready, and willing to obey. Thus, both the necessity, and the calling of the Deaconate are plainly established in Acts chapter 6.

If this is indeed the case, then it gives Christ’s Church today a firm basis upon which to appoint Deacons, for in doing so, she carries on the work commanded to her by the Apostles themselves, which is tantamount to obeying her Lord. This also means that Pastors should spend their time in study and prayer, and should demonstrate that they are called to office in how they run their homes and hold the office of husband and father (Titus 1:1-10). The tasks of accounting, church maintenance, and most importantly community service and distribution of service and goods to those who are of the household of faith, are extremely important, and these things should never be neglected. In fact, it would seem that our forefathers thought that a church which did neglect such things was not church at all. Nevertheless, these things are the legitimate duty of the Deaconate, and not the Pastorate, and should be done in subjection to the pastor, submission to the Church, but headed immediately by the deacons themselves. And no others. For when this is accomplished the Church carries on the work of her Lord on earth, in the way in which He has commanded, and by use of the means which His Spirit established through the Apostles in the most perfect way that it could have been done. This means that doing so will bring power and authority to Christ’s Church as it always has, and then she will carry the message of Christ to the ends of the earth, and the Lord will return to vindicate and glorify her.

Soli Deo gloria

 

 

 

 

 

References

Calvin, J. (1559). John Calvin Bible Commentary. Geneva.

Henry, M. (1706). Matthew Henry Complete Bible Commentary.

MacArthur, J. (n.d.). MacArthur Study Bible. Santa Clarita California: Grace to You.

Polhill, J. B. (1992 ). The New American Commentary Volume 26 Acts. Nashville: B and H Pblishing.

Various Authors. (1990). The Pulpit Commentary. Hendrickson.

Various Authors. (2015). Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary. Nashville: Belt Publishers.