Faith without religion.
Acts 6:4-7: Leadership, Service, and Community
In a recent teaching, we explored Acts 6:4-7, focusing on the apostles’ decision to appoint seven men to oversee the distribution of alms to widows. This decision was made to allow the apostles to dedicate themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. The chosen seven were men of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, ensuring fair and unbiased management of church affairs.
The selection process was significant, as it involved the community in choosing individuals they trusted, thus preventing any suspicion of favoritism. The number seven, while sacred to the Hebrews, was likely chosen for practical reasons, such as avoiding split decisions.
Among the seven, Stephen stands out as a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit. His story, which unfolds in the subsequent chapters, highlights the principle of being faithful in small tasks before being called to greater responsibilities. Stephen’s eventual martyrdom and his powerful witness even in death had a profound impact, notably on Saul of Tarsus, who would later become the Apostle Paul.
Philip, another of the seven, also transitioned from serving tables to becoming a successful evangelist, demonstrating how initial roles can lead to broader ministries.
The appointment of these seven men was marked by the laying on of hands, a practice rooted in ancient traditions of setting individuals apart for specific duties. This act symbolized the apostles’ endorsement and the community’s trust in these men to manage the church’s material needs.
The narrative concludes with the word of God spreading and even a great number of priests becoming obedient to the faith, illustrating the powerful impact of the apostles’ decision and the growing influence of the early church. This sets the stage for the challenges and triumphs that follow, particularly in the life of Stephen, whose story serves as a testament to faithfulness and courage in the face of adversity.
Teaching Script:
Welcome
Prayer
Word Set to Music
Silence
Acts 6.4-7
March 6th 2016
So last week we read how out of necessity the twelve apostles told the disciples or all the followers of Christ at that time) to chose seven men out from among themselves to oversee the business of the church at that time – specifically, to distribute alms to the widows.
At verse 2 they said, “It’s not reasonable that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” (and we talked about that line, then (verse 3) they said:
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”
At verse four they added:
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Alright back to verse three.
The people were murmuring about the matter so the apostles placed the remedy in their hands –
“look ye out among you” (choose or select, among your own group) seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”
Because it was a matter relating to their own affairs and well-being it seemed proper that they should be the ones to choose such men as they could confide in to oversee matters fairly.
It might also be that in approaching the problem this way the apostles would be free from suspicion of showing favoritism both in the distribution of goods and/or in the selection of qualified deacons.
We know from the choices made that when the apostles said, “from among you” that this meant from all of those there and was not limited in any way by the personal history or background of those chosen – they could have been Jews from Jerusalem or those from other areas.
Interestingly enough they also told them to choose “seven men.”
Admittedly the number seven was a sacred number among the Hebrews but there is nothing that suggests that there was any mystical reason for choosing this number.
First of all, they had to choose a number so ANY number chosen could be seen as really significant.
It may also be that they chose an odd number so if a decision needed to be made among them they would naturally avoid a split vote.
Seven is a fairly large number too but not so large that it would be unwieldy. Today there are churches that make a big deal out of seven deacons (or the number seven or seventy) but in my opinion it is just another means of playing church.
Who did the twelve tell them to choose? Men who had three qualifications:
To be men of an honest report.
To be full of the Holy Spirit, and
Full of wisdom.
“Men of an honest report,” means men who had a reputation for being fair, who could be regarded as men of integrity.
From the Greek it really means men who have “put forth a witness of being fair and reliable. Then . . .
“Full of the Holy Ghost.”
This does not seem to mean that they were manifesting great spiritual gifts, though, as we will see, there were those who did, but moreso that they were men who were obviously under the influence of the Holy spirit. It is an interesting description in the Greek because it means men “who are completely covered by” and not necessarily men “who are entirely filled with.”
And with wisdom – Sophia – in the Greek, prudence or having the skill to make a wise and equable decisions – especially in the area of making distributions to the widows.
By the time we get to Paul, he elaborates on the qualifications of deacons or servants in the church that are given here by the original twelve and says in 1st Timothy 3:8-10:
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
I think Paul’s additions to the original descriptions of deacons are well fitted and dovetail in perfectly with what is said here.
Any way, at this point men were needed who due to spiritual piety and fair character possessed prudence or wisdom in managing the affairs connected with their office and the need at hand.
And what would the apostles do ONCE the people chose men of this caliber? “Pick seven,” they said,
“whom we may appoint over this business.”
The election or choosing was done by the people and the appointment was made by the apostles.
And the way which they will appoint them was through the imposition of hands, which we will get to in verse 6.
In and through this approach the apostles were able to give the Gong-Goose-mus (murmurers) a voice in the solution and then they, through their apostolic approbation, gave these men heavenly approval and support.
this way hus the fights of both were preserved– the right of the church to designate those who should serve them in the office of deacon, and the right of the apostles to organize and establish the church with its appropriate officers; on the one hand, a due regard to the liberty and privileges of the Christian community, and on the other, the security of proper respect for the office, as being of apostolic appointment and authority.
Notice however what exactly these seven were called or elected by the people to do and be and what the apostles set them aside to do – to oversee “this business.”
What business? To manage the distribution of material alms and goods to widows of the church.
We might suppose that there were a number of widows and counting because men were both dying earlier than their husbands and one reason for this could have been from persecution.
And while this was certainly the case as the early church matured and times got tougher and tougher around them, it may have also been the case here.
Anyway, the seven were specifically called to oversee the business of the distribution of alms especially to widows.
It was not setting them aside to preach, or to govern the church.
We also see that their call was distinguished here from that of preaching the gospel. This was in the hands of the apostles.
Additionally, we cannot suppose that this call and setting apart was establishing an “order in the clergy.”
I actually see the whole thing as not one bit different than the apostles needing to build a structure and asking the people to elect seven men who were trustworthy to oversee it happening.
Unfortunately, in the ever abiding human need to organize some have made diakonos a form of priesthood expression or church governance.
I think this is stepping way out on a limb – especially in light of Acts 6.
The whole idea to call men to oversee the distribution of goods to the poor probably originated from the fact that in the ancient synagogues of the Jews three men were entrusted with the care of the poor.
They were called (in Hebrew) “parnasins.”
And it was probably from this fact that the apostles got the idea of appointing(in the Greek) “diakonos” in the Christian church.
Is it good to have people that oversee the distribution of material alms to the poor? Obviously. And for a number of good reasons. One of them is given by the apostles in verse 4 where speaking to their specific call:
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
The Greek for “continually to prayer and to the ministry of the Word” means that the apostles worked feverishly toward this objective, were uber focused on their Christ given objective, and did not want to be distracted by the cares of material difficulties – even by giving attention to the temporal wants of the church.
These men had a special call upon their lives and it was for that day and that time and they were not going to let other things get in the way.
(verse 5)
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: (everyone was happy with the decision) and they (the multitude) chose
Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,
and Philip,
and Prochorus,
and Nicanor,
and Timon,
and Parmenas,
and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch:
Let’s go through each of these names quickly and see if there is much to say about them.
Luke begins with, and introduces us to the first Christian martyr – a man named Stephen, (steph-an-os, in Greek).
Steph-an-os is given a little bigger description than the other six and it is because having now introduced us to him Luke will describe how he was used of God.
In fact in a moment we will see Stephanos step away from waiting tables and begin preaching and teaching with boldness – and event that takes up the rest of chapter 6 and all of chapter 7.
We will read that this man “fell asleep” or died with a prayer on his lips for his persecutors and afterward devout men carried him to his grave. One of the cool things about being introduced to Stephanos here is that his death introduces us to a young Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, at whose feet those who stoned Stephanos laid their clothes before they killed him.
It is thought by many that due to the words he preached and the prayer he gave prior to being stoned that Paul was deeply affected and then opened to his conversion which will occur later.
There is an important principle here in the calling and the appointing of Stephanos which is he was FIRST a man who had prepared himself in faith and allowed the Holy Spirit to abide upon him greatly.
Then we see that he was chosen by the people to oversee the distribution of alms – not necessarily a glamourous job.
But then we will soon see that Stephan preaches what will be the first apologetic response in the Book of Acts by a non-apostle and as a result will not only be persecuted to the point of death but will give a witness similar to Christ in that while He was dying testified both of God and Christ and asked that those who were killing him be forgiven.
And so it is with ALL of us – you and me and everyone who will every hear this message.
We too are invited, by faith, to grow in our faith, to be known among others to be someone they can trust.
We too are given – every minute of every day of the week – to allow the Spirit to thrive (which tacitly means letting the flesh die).
All of us are then given opportunities to “wait tables” – to do tasks that seem absolutely void of glamour – going to work, visiting the sick, helping the struggling and down – and in the midst of doing these things have opportunity to reach out and share with others.
This principle is at the heart of the story of Stephanos – the faithful servant elected by the people to serve them that gave a sermon of such power that he reached the heart of Paul.
and Philip
Now, there are a few Philips in scripture so he can get confused. There is an apostle named Philip which complicates matter even more.
This Phillip, one of the “seven,” is also called “the evangelist” (in Acts 21:8-9) so in him and his beginnings as a table waiter we have another Stephanos story.
After the death of Stephanos we will read that the believers we have been reading about here were “scattered abroad” (another great principle we’ll get to in the next few weeks).
And Phillip first went to Samaria, where he labored as an evangelist with much success (according to Acts 8:5-13).
While he was there he received a divine command to proceed toward the south, along the road leading from Jerusalem to Gaza. There were two roads that connected the two towns and one that Philip was told to take led through Hebron, a district with few people and which was called “desert.”
We will read about how this same Philip meets a Eunuch, has a conversation with him and participates in the mans conversion.
For twenty years after this Philip worked in evangelism and after running into Paul and his companions (in Acts 21) Philip will disappear from biblical history.
But again, like Stephen, Philip was first called to wait tables – and then went on to be called the Evangelist.
When it comes to the next four –
Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, and Parmenas,
We’ve got NOTHING. At all. All we can say is that it appears based on the names of all seven they were all Hellenists, or men whose lives were influenced by the Greek ways of life. Finally we read,
“and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.”
We really don’t know much about this man (for a certainty) but some of the early church “Fathahs” (Ireneus and others) say that the sect of the Nicolaitanes, mentioned in Revelation 2:6 and 15 came from him. We can’t be sure.
However, when Luke describes Nicolas as a proselyte the word means someone who converted from one religion to another and NOT that Nicolas was being proselytized into Christianity.
We know this would not be the case for how could he be considered a man of the faith, full of the Holy Spirit and of a sound reputation among others” and not be a Christian?
The term, therefore – Nicolas the proselyte – referred to the fact that he came from one faith (probably paganism) into Judaism, converted, and that is why he is referred to as Nicolas the proselyte.
Because he is the only proselyte mentioned (among the seven deacons) it seems pretty obvious that the others were born Jews, and while some of them may have been born in Palestine it seems by their names most were Hellenists.
One final point. Luke describes Nicolas as, “a proselyte of Antioch.”
Antioch is a city that is mentioned a number of times in the New Testament and it was in Syria on the Orontes river.
And while Antioch is never mentioned in the Old Testament proper it is mentioned quite a few times in the Apocrypha.
It was built by Seleucus Nicanor, 301 BC and was named Antioch, in honor of his father Antiochus.
It is here, as we will see in Acts 11:26 that followers of Christ were first called Christians.
Josephus tells us that Antioch was the third city in size of the Roman provinces, being inferior only to Seleucia and Alexandria, a city that was powerful, had many gates, many fine fountains, and possessed great fertility of soil and commercial opulence.
It was also subject to great earthquakes, and was frequently almost destroyed by them. So there are the first seven apostolically appointed diakonos (verse 6)
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
There are three “they’s” in this passage and they are speaking to two different groups – the believers and the apostles.
So speaking of the Seven:
“Whom they (the masses or believers that elected or chose the seven) set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they (the apostles) they laid their hands on them.”
Because the apostles said that they would be giving themselves to prayer and teaching the Word I think we can safely assume that they were the ones who prayed.
I think we might also assume that these were directly connected actions of the apostles. In other words, “when they prayed they laid their hands on the seven,” invoking the name of God in their blessing upon these men in their respective work.
Now, when we read, “they laid their hands,” among the Jews anciently it was customary to lay hands on the head of a person who was set apart to any particular office, call or duty. Why? Where and what does this mean and should it be done today (there are a number of religions who seem to believe it matters.
So let’s look at it.
And I want you to start by pretending that you are a rancher – of sheep. And you have an enormous flock of all sorts of sheep – speckeled, mottled, freckled, black, and white.
And let’s say that you get approached by a woolen mill that wanted only the whitest of natural wool.
So you create a separating gate with two paths and tell your ranch hands to send all your sheep down the shoot. And here they come!
All those of multicolor your send to the left and all those what are pure white you send to the right. How? Do you speak it and they obey?
No. You touch them. You lay your hands on them and send them down the proper shoot as a means to (ready) set them apart.
It’s a practice that goes all the way back to the earliest of agrarian times. And the earliest of Mosaic times.
Frequently then the imposition of hands is associated not with blessing or the bestowal of power but with simply separating one type of people or animal from the larger group.
Under the laws of sacrifice found in the Old Testament we read this regarding the sacrifice of animals:
Exodus 29:10 And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock.
Individual men are told in Leviticus 1:4
“And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”
And the examples go on and on of men laying hands on animals that were being??? (that’s right) “set apart” (from the other animals) to perform a certain function – in these cases, to sanctify the people by the shedding of their blood.
In this we find another parallel to laying on of hands in the New Testament by the Apostles – they not only did it to take people and set them apart from the rest – like we’ve seen here in Acts 6 with the calling of these seven diakonos, but in the setting them apart from the rest by the laying on of hands we also see instances where they laid hands on people to bestow the Holy Spirit.
And what would be the Holy Spirits function in the life of the recipient – to sanctify them, make them holy, and set them apart from this world.
Was the imposition of hands used everytime people received the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. No.
Did the apostles lay hands on every single person that was called to do a labor in the Kingdom? No.
But it was a practice that:
Carried over from the Old Testament.
Certainly established certain peoples to do certain things in the church at that time.
And may or may not be used in churches today to create or cause the same effect.
But take careful notice – we do not have the capacity to bestow the Holy Spirit to another by and through this means – no matter what people claim.
The apostles were promised by Christ that whatever they chose to do would occur here on earth.
They held a very special dispensation of miracles and wonders in their hands as they prepared the church for the destruction of the age in 70 AD.
But Jesus made it clear that the Holy Spirit is like the wind and goes where it will. So where they could bestow it by and through the laying on of their hands to those people for that day and age and time, today the Holy Spirit fills who it will and the use of hands is nothing more than playing church.
Since God’s Spirit is the Spirit that “sanctifies” or “sets apart” people from the rest of the world, and this separation is spiritually based it is the call and duty of the “Holy Spirit” since the end of the material world of religion at 70 AD.
Additionally, the Holy Spirit naturally sets people apart from the rest of the flock when it bestows spiritual gifts on some which qualifies them for special tasks in the body.
So in the case of these seven men they were called, elected and chosen by the people but the apostles showed by the laying on of their hands that they also endorsed each of these men for the task at hand – to distribute alms to the poor – namely the poor widows.
While we are on the subject, what’s the deal with widows anyway? Do the same rules and focus apply to us in our day?
I would say, “yes, certainly” . . . and “no.”
First yes.
In both the old and new Testaments widows are said to be treated with kindness.
Exodus 22:22, Deuternomy 14:29 and on and on all command that widows NOT be taken advantage of and treated with care.
And here in Acts we see special attention given to them again.
And James says in James 1:27 “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
So, certainly, to widows, orphans, people who are placed in special dire circumstances the Bible is clear we ought to care for them and their needs.
But I do NOT believe that all of the instructions in the New Testament relative to our care of widows is mandatory or applicable.
For example, this is what Paul says on the subject (in 1st Timothy 5 beginning at verse 3.)
As I read I’ll note what I think is applicable and what is not. Can we do this with scripture? You decide. Verse 3:
1st Timothy 5:3 Honor widows that are widows indeed. (sounds like reasonable advice. Instead of just caring for all widows we might be careful to note who are widows indeed. So he goes on and says)
4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
9 Let not a widow be taken into the number (be cared for) under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
So there we have it – Paul’s description of widows that can and should be helped and those who should be avoided.
Important qualifiers to that day and age? I’m sure it was. But as applicable to us? Not as, not so much.
So by the spirit we operate in and around the principles delivered here in scripture. Certainly widows ought to be considered and cared for with diligence – orphans too.
This is the Spirit of the Letter. But Paul helps round things out for us while also showing that not everything he mentions can or should be applied to our assessment of a widow’s situation.
So after assigning and setting apart these seven men we read (verse 7 Acts 6)
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
And the word of God increased. The gospel was gaining ground proving that the decision to add these seven men to this task was beneficial to it spreading.
Interestingly enough Luke lets us in on the fact that even “a great company of the priests were “obedient to the faith.”
When it says that they were “obedient to the faith,” I think we need to read this exactly as it is – they were obedient to the faith, which means they believed!
I also think Luke adds this little fact in her for us for a couple of reasons.
First, it goes a long way to show us that power of the Gospel among the Jews of that day – I mean a multitude of priests converting?! Wow. This is an amazing fact as the Levitical priests were some of the most devout Jews around.
But I also think that this insight sets the stage for what is about to happen next – and that is the story of Stephanos.
With the Gospel getting legs – so much so that even multitudes of Levitical priests are joining the ranks – the defenders of Judaism were on high alert and seething to put an end to this . . . this cult.
And the stage is set for the man Stephanos to step forward at both the best possible time (for the faith) and the worst (for him).
Q and A
