Dennis Tuuri

God to be accurate in what we say about them and help us of all things Lord God to honor your word and your law by acting in obedience to what we learn this morning. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. Children may be dismissed now to go to their schools.

We’ve just done some responsive reading in Psalm 119 about the importance of God’s law and his government. We responded to that by singing that we understand that the blessings come upon the men that are obedient to God’s law.

And that’s what we’ve been trying to do in this church for the last three or four months is understand the word of God, the scriptures and God’s law as it pertains to government in general and then specifically in the church. We are now dealing with the New Testament perspective on that issue. Having spent three months roughly in the Old Covenant and we last week talked about the foundation of the apostles and the link to the Old Testament church.

The 12 patriarchs and yet the discontinuous elements—that there was now a greater expansion of the gospel than under the old covenant. Now that Jesus Christ has ascended to the right hand of the father and the holy spirit’s been given to his church in a fuller measure, there’s now to be greater blessings and greater prosperity as it were in the preaching of the gospel. More converts will come to Jesus Christ and in a quicker fashion.

And that’s what happens of course with the early first century church. We now come to Acts 6 which I said last week we would spend some time on. I also said that next week we talk about the council of Jerusalem. However, next week, I think we’ll spend more time on Acts 6, dealing with the laying out of the hands of the apostles upon the seven that are selected this morning and spend a whole Sunday talking about that before we go to the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Acts 6. The verses we just read 1 through 8 can be broken up in a pretty simple fashion. Verse one talks about the situation that they faced and the problem as it were. Verses 2 through 4, the apostles appoint a proposed solution to that problem. So we have a solution proposed and then verses 5-8 the solution is implemented and prosperity continues in the church. Blessings come upon them for they solve their problem in accordance with God’s word.

So that’s roughly the outline we’ll follow this morning: looking at the situation first and then the solution. We’ll talk about the proposed solution and the implementation of that solution pretty much in one area. And under those both those two major points then we’ll have various sub points.

Now this section of scripture is and the whole topic I suppose of church government has received a lot of attention over these centuries. There’s been a lot written about Acts 6. Many of it very wanting probably. And we’ll talk also as we go along this morning about some of the interesting comments on Acts 6 and some of the implications of it and how there’s been a lot of confusion I think over the subject of Acts which the simple exegesis of the passage will help us to avoid.

Additionally, I mentioned some months ago when we were talking about the chieftain officers that there seem to be some correlations between Numbers 11 and the selection of the 70 and Acts 6 selection of seven. And so we’ll be looking at some of those correlations as well. I’m not saying by that there’s an exact one for one transference of that office into the church office of the deacon, but I do think there’s a great deal of correlation and I do think it would be wise on our part to understand again some of the continuity involved in the New Testament office of deacon.

Our premise as we began this study was that there are many offices in the old covenant and most of those offices find their fulfillment in the church in terms of the elders and deacons. And although we’re testing that premise as we go along, it seems to be holding true. And so the office of the deacon has some correlates of belief in the selection of the chieftains in the old covenant. And we’ll look more at that as we go through this section of scripture as well.

Okay. The first situation, the problem that existed: We see that as a result of the multiplication of the disciples there arose then a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Now I mentioned some rather novel interpretations of Acts 6 and this particular section—what the problem was, the solution to it—is one area which has been a great deal of speculation in terms of what this meant. It is assumed by most people that there was a problem between the Grecians and the Hebrews that the Grecians were being neglected in administration. Now the word Grecian means Greek-speaking Jew. These were not Gentiles and Jews gathered together here. There were Greek speaking Jews and Hebrew speaking Jews. And so you must get that straight in your own mind.

And the word there by the way for the daily ministration is the root form diakon, diakonoi, which is the word root form of the word that will become deacon later on as we go through this study. And so we already have a serving as it were, administration going on—a deacon-ish function as it were—and that’s the problem. But as I said people assume that this problem actually did exist whereas scripture seems not to be saying that it necessarily did exist. It’s saying that it was reported amongst them that this was the reason given for the murmuring that was occurring on the part of the Grecians against the Hebrews, or the Greek speaking Jews as opposed to the Hebrew speaking Jews.

Some people think the fact that there was a division means that from that point they go and say that there are divisions based upon those people who obeyed God’s law and those people who didn’t want to be put under the yoke of God’s law. And see in the selection of the seven a parallel development to the 12 apostles. Now we have seven of these people—they’re not specifically called deacons in this chapter of scripture, although I think we’ll see later on there’s many things to indicate that they were fulfilling the office of deacons. But some people say they weren’t called deacons. They could have been presbyters or elders.

And we see here the selection of seven men to rule over the Hellenist Jews and 12 men who are going to continue to rule over the Hebrew Jews. These guys are going to emphasize the law more. These guys are not going to emphasize the law. Now, part of the reason they say that is because when the seven are finally selected, they all have Greek names and from that they infer that these must have all been Greek people and they appointed these guys to rule over the Greek portion of the church.

Well, that was a great deal of speculation and in fact flies right in the face of much of scripture. Another reason why they say this is because Stephen—after him being of course one of the appointed seven—Stephen, as we’ll find out later in the chapter, or you will in your own personal studies (we won’t deal much with this ourselves this morning), but in your own personal studies in Acts 6, you’ll find that Stephen was persecuted.

And the persecution of the church occurred with Stephen being the first person that suffers the persecution from the Jews. And the false charges they raised against Stephen were that he was going to tear down the temple and that he was trying to put aside the customs of Moses or the law of God. And Stephen then gives a lengthy defense of himself in the following verses that we read in Acts 6 and 7.

I won’t go into that but I will say this much: that if you read that defense of Stephen what you’ll find is he does not say the temple’s no good and neither is the law. What he says is that throughout the history of God’s working with people—including the Jewish church of the old covenant—God never meant to convey the fact that he actually tabernacled among men in ability. And that was it. It was always prefiguring the coming of God to tabernacle with his people in the Messiah to come.

They did not—well I shouldn’t say they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand so as to obey in the old covenant. And they were now not understanding that truth and walking in obedience to it in the new covenant either.

In relationship to the law, Peter says repeatedly in his defense that they didn’t keep the law. He’s saying, “Don’t tell me that I’m preaching that we should disobey the law. You guys don’t obey the law. I’m the one who’s obeying the law.” He says, “Just as the tabernacle was always given as an indication that there’d be a coming Messiah, a tabernacle with his people, so the law of God was also given to the people and they always disobeyed it.”

When Moses received the law from God, he says, “We were down there, the Jewish church was down there disobeying the law of God by worshiping other gods in violation of the first and second commandments.” And that is a typical pattern of the church as it falls away from the truth.

And he’s accusing them then of setting aside the law of God. He doesn’t say that the law of God is being set aside. He says that they are violating the law of God. We won’t spend a lot of time on that. But the point is the people who have come to the text have the presupposition of discontinuity between the old covenant church and the new covenant church—the old covenant church being the keeper of God’s law and the new covenant church being under grace.

Read that discontinuity to the passage where it is not here. I think that Calvin’s comments on this murmuring that occurred and the Greek-Hebrew problem are probably more to the point. Calvin says this about this particular section of scripture. Verse one: “A murmuring of the Greeks. Hereby it appeareth that they were not fully regenerate by the spirit of God to whom the diversity of nation and country minister occasion of disagreement. For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Galatians 3:28. Therefore, this indignation smellth of the flesh and of the world. Wherefore we must take good heed that the light fault be not found in us.”

“There is another fault in that they declare their indignation by murmuring. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the complaint were true or not. For when Luke saith that the Greeks murmured because their widows were not honored, he showeth not what was done indeed, but what they thought was done. And it may be that for as much as the apostles did prefer the Jews, because they were better known, the Greeks did think, though falsely, that their widows were despised as strangers. And this seemth to be more like to be true.”

Now, I don’t know if you want to go as far as Calvin did, but what he said was there’s reason to suspect the regeneracy of the people who murmured and caused this problem. And certainly if you look at the word study—the word murmur in the New Testament and then the Old Testament references that come out of that—murmuring is never a good thing. Murmuring is a bad thing.

Just some few verses along that line (there’s many other): Philippians 2:14 says, “Do all things without murmuring and disputation.” They were in direct violation of that. Every Sunday when we have communion downstairs, we read from a portion of scripture from 1 Corinthians 10 where he says, “Neither murmur ye as some of them also murmured and were destroyed of the destroyer.” We are reminded downstairs weekly that the old covenant church in the wilderness did murmur and complain and many times about the food they received and God’s judgment came upon them and we’re reminded not to be murmurers in this church.

Murmuring is a terrible sin. And so I think there is some reason for Calvin’s comments on this point. Murmuring is not a good thing. These people were involved in murmuring and they were seeing two groups pitted against one another which is a violation of Galatians 3:28 where all men are one in Jesus Christ. So I think it’s fallacious to see this then as some sort of class warfare that produced two different kinds of churches. That’s a violation of the command of scripture and the unity of scripture.

The fact that the seven deacons were given Greek names means nothing either really. A couple of the apostles had Greek names as well. We knew they were Hebrews and Hebrew speaking Jews and so the simply the composition of the name doesn’t really mean anything. I can’t read too much into that either.

Now I simply be drawing some correlations with Numbers 11 and this incidence of murmuring and class distinctions—and this kind of thing is also repeated in Numbers 11 prior to the selection of the chieftain officers. The people were complaining about their food again. They were crying out to Moses. I think my daughter said that Roy talked about this last week in the Sunday school class—was crying under age kids downstairs talked about how the people were having a pity party and using Garrett’s term—and that’s what they were doing. Of course in Numbers 11 they were complaining about the food they were getting. The food was manna and we know the scriptures tell us that the manna was the body of Christ symbolized to them. That he provides all their food and strength and they were rejecting Christ by murmuring about that food.

There was also a mixed multitude there, remember that. When we said that when the people of Israel came out of Egypt they didn’t come out all Jews. They came out with a mixed multitude. And in Numbers 11, you’ll find through an examination of that passage that there was a mixed multitude. And the mixed multitude was the ones who begin to lust as it were and desire different foods. And then the Hebrew people themselves fall into that same sin.

So we have problems accompanied both by a complaint of food and the mixed multitude mixing with the Jews there and causing some problems as well in Numbers 11.

And so there is some correlation then in the problem that presents itself in Acts 6 and Numbers 11.

Now, it’s rather obvious—we’ve made some of the points already—but this is application to us today. Of course, we must recognize, as Calvin said, we must never fall into the sin that there are different bodies of Jesus Christ. There is one body of Christ, and people are brought into that one body. When we allow things such as financial position or cultural background or race or any other element to enter in to divide the body of Christ, that’s sin. It’s a division and it’s a denial of Galatians 3:28 where he says that all men are one in Jesus Christ.

Reverend Rushdoony in one of his latest easy chair talks I was very interested to hear what he had to say. He got several letters about how by the year I don’t know 1990 or something or year 2000 there’d be more Spanish speaking and black people in America than whites and he said “I get letters like this and why my response is so what I could care less.” He said, “You know we don’t we’re not interested in race we’re interested in obedience to God” and he finally concluded his remarks in that section which were very pointed and very to the point.

He said, “I don’t believe that America is for the whites or America belongs to the whites anymore than I believe that Africa belongs to the blacks. Africa and America belong to God. And when people are obedient to God, they’ll be blessed regardless of race. When people are disobedient, they’ll be cursed by God regardless of race. God will place people in each of those nations who will act in obedience to him in the long run. And those people, whether white or black, who reject him in those nations, will be judged by him and tossed out of them.”

Let’s important for us to recognize. Additionally, it’s important to recognize that we shouldn’t murmur. This murmuring was to cause a division. It, as we’ve said before, there are many instances where murmuring is specifically condemned by God. We’ve said many times in this church that one of the most terrible things to happen to a church is murmuring—talk about each other, accusations said behind closed doors about other members of the church. Very disastrous thing.

It’s particularly disastrous and the murmuring seems to impinge upon the leadership that the church has been given. And here, of course, there were some indications of that as well. But it’s interesting the reaction of the apostles. It’s similar to the reaction of Moses in Numbers 11. Again, Moses didn’t call fire down from God to consume the people. He did complain. He did say, “I can’t bear with this.” The apostles knew that though, and they knew what God did for Moses in Numbers 11.

He had Moses select assistants as it were to serve the people. And so now we have the apostles in Acts 6 moving toward a solution, and in verses 2 through 4 they proposed that solution and 5-8 the solution is carried out.

What did that solution involve with it? Well, first of all the apostles did not react against the situation but they ruled well. They show themselves as model examples of management and leadership in the church here. They didn’t rail. They didn’t start a series of church courts against the murmurers. They moved to clear any suspicion that might be there by actually appointing people specifically over that function or assignment to the task. So they knew it’d be carried out well and then the complaints would cease if they were they had some basis in legitimacy and if they continued that I’m sure they would have taken church action against them.

But they didn’t react. They were assured of their position before God. They knew they had a group of people to manage as Moses did and they moved to meet the needs of those people. And so they called a head of household meeting, which we’ve had several of in this church—none recently. But they called a head of household meeting. They assembled the multitude of the disciples together unto them and they proposed their solution.

Now in the proposal of this solution we also see various commentators making suggestions as to what the solution was that I think are really off the money frequently. Several of them have been quite good but several are quite poor. First of all I want us to see that in the appointing of these seven people what did not occur.

First of all, they did not create assistants to the apostles. Now I said that Moses did. Moses was given 70 assistants and that’s true. Now Moses was as it were the lawgiver to the people. He was emblematic or typological, I guess, of Jesus Christ himself of God. And so he did have assistants in the 70. But the apostles don’t call themselves in need of assistants to their office. What do they say specifically, very clearly?

They don’t say “this is too much for us. We need some help doing these things.” They don’t say that. What they say is “it’s not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.”

Now what they’re saying is our function under the government of Jesus Christ—under the command of God’s word—is to be apostles—to dedicate ourselves to the teaching of God’s word, to the study of it and then the transmission of that to the church. That’s our job. This other job that needs to be done is not our job. We don’t need help doing it. We need a separate group of people to take care of it.

They didn’t appoint assistants to themselves. That should be obvious in the very wording. Additionally, the selection involved—Paul did have assistants occasionally who would assist him. He chose them himself personally. If the apostles were going to get a group of assistants to themselves that they could have do various tasks they were assigned to do, they wouldn’t have gone about it selecting in this manner. They would have done just like Paul did where he decided he wanted to have this person serve him. Didn’t want John Mark serving him at a certain point in time and just summarily on his own chose his own assistants.

So it’s important to recognize here that what we have is the creation of an entirely separate office with an entirely separate function and to be administered by entirely separate people. They didn’t appoint to themselves assistants. Rather, the whole point of the appointment of the seven was that they could do the job they were called to do without entering into these other things.

There’s no indication in the text that at this point in time, the apostles were actually serving tables. It doesn’t really say that here. Some people may infer that, but it doesn’t say it. They were dedicating themselves to the preaching of God’s word and the study of it. And to continue to do that task and not to have to serve tables, they appointed people over that area.

Now, there’s interesting correlation in the old covenant as well. And there in the job of the apostles in 1 Chronicles 3:14 under the reign of Hezekiah we’re told that the institute of the tithe—for what reason? So that the Levites could devote themselves to the study of the word of God. And here we have the apostles selecting a group of people to take over the ministration of the tables—the deacons as it were over the tables—and serving administratively the church and Jesus Christ. They had that so that they could continue to devote themselves to the word of God.

So you have a definite correlation here. And as we said last week, to the priestly tribe and the Levites, the job of the priests which is to teach and pray. So we have here in the apostles that they devote themselves to the study of God’s word so they can teach that word. And so they’re correlary also to the Levites. And that, by the way, is a very strong indication that the primary—and I’ve said this before in this church—the primary purpose of the tithe is to relieve men for the study of that word and for the preaching of that word.

That was the reason for the tithe in the old covenant. And we see here that the apostles and after the apostles, the elders are given that job of devoting themselves to the word of God.

So they didn’t create assistants to themselves. But it’s also important to say that they didn’t create assistants to the church ultimately either and not to God. Now it may seem that they were certainly servants to the church and they were—through a transmission as it were. What I’m trying to say here is that when we look at the word minister or deacon in the New Testament—which is what that word is translated as minister, it’s normally deacon—the ministry is always talked about as being a ministry of God.

These men were appointed servants primarily of God first and then by way of extension to God’s people. But they weren’t the church—and in and of itself—as the end goal for the ministry of the deacons. God’s service is.

Now the scriptures use the term deacon in a very generalized sense in the new covenant. There are some specific senses as well which we’ll get to but there are many generalized senses. But the first one I want talk about is Romans 15:8. In Romans 15:8, it is said that Jesus Christ came to be a deacon—Jesus Christ came to be a deacon to the circumcision, servant to the church, but not ultimately to the church—on behalf of the truth of God. Jesus Christ was a deacon to God. And one of the jobs that God the Father gave Jesus Christ was to serve the circumcision by preaching the word to them. So Jesus Christ was a deacon to the circumcision on behalf of God.

In John 2, verses 5 and 9, the term deacon is used in the generalized sense at the marriage feast at Cana. And the deacons were the men that had to obey the instructions of Jesus in turning the water into wine. They had to fill up the jugs. And these were deacons, table servants.

Again, the state itself in Romans 13:4 is called a minister. And again, a minister not to the people, but a minister of God. And so, we know that the civil magistrate is responsible to fulfill God’s instructions in the scriptures as it relates to his office because he’s called a minister of God.

In 2 Corinthians 6:4, all believers are said to be deacons. 2 Corinthians 6:4, we read, “Not to receive the grace of God in vain, but in everything, commending yourselves as servants—again, not of the church, but as servants of God, ministers of God.” And all believers have that position as being deacons or servants of God.

Then finally, Matthew 25, verses 31-46, we’re told that the final judgment itself will be done in relationship to how well we serve as servants of Jesus Christ. He says that if you give a cup of cold water to me, you will have done well and you’ll be blessed. You’ll enter into heaven. If you give food to Jesus Christ when he’s hungry, you’ll have done well and enter into heaven. If you visit Jesus Christ when he was in jail, you will do well and will enter into heaven. But if you don’t do these things, you’ll be cast into hell. Jesus said, “You are to serve me and serve me with material things as well.”

And by way of extension then—when they said “who is Jesus Christ?”—when you see the least of these, that’s me, he said. And so we serve the people in the church and the people outside the church. Why? Because we’re serving God through that ministry.

That may seem like a subtle point but it’s an important one. Remember that the age we live in, we live in an age that is in violent revolution against the teaching of God’s word. Why? Because we missed the central element of the primacy of God and his direction for our lives. What’s a humanist? He’s a man who serves other men. Well, that’s good that he serves other men, but he serves them as his only goal—not as it were to God. We as a church could easily fall into that same trap of seeing the church as ultimate and not God itself.

Ministers, however, in the job that the deacons—the deacons were when they were created—were not assistants to the church primarily, ultimately, but they were servants to God. And so, we were called to do that task.

So we see then that the office that was created were not assistants to the apostles. They weren’t assistants to the deacons really. They were assistants to God. And the third thing I think that is quite important here is that when this office was created, they didn’t create a second-ass office somehow or a lower office. And we talked about this a little bit a couple of weeks ago, but I’ll spend a little more time on it now.

It’s important to see the context of these remarks in the New Testament. The Greek view of service was not exactly a high one. In fact, Plato said, “How can a man be happy when he has to serve someone?” They held service as a contemptable job. Plato said that the servant is a contemptable flatterer. That was his description of somebody who would serve other men. A terrible thing. You can’t be happy when you serve somebody else.

The only exception that Plato made was when one serve the state, the poleis, the people, and assembled as the state as it were. And then somebody could be truly happy by serving the state. See a lot of that same attitude today. Some of us watched Fountain Head in the last few weeks and that movie—which was based upon of course a novel by Ayn Rand who was one of the I guess founders of the philosophical movement that resulted in the libertarian party—that movie of course denies the importance of serving other people. You’re to serve yourself and if you serve yourself good will come to everybody else.

So that’s the concept of the Greeks that continues to be the concept of people today in America. But it’s not the concept of the scriptures. The scriptural concept from the Old Testament on was somewhat different. Leviticus 19:18 in the Old Covenant says that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. The second tablet of the law—that’s not a New Testament verse. It’s a direct quotation from Leviticus 19:18.

And the people who based their ethic upon the old covenant alone understood that as well. The Mishna has an interesting occurrence in it where Rabbi Gamaliel too was said to have staged a group of disciples when he instead of teaching them. He put on the servant’s apron and he served them at their table food. And there was a lot of controversy about this. They were astounded by it.

And yet two of the rabbis there, one Joshua said that Abraham was greater—was greater than Gamaliel certainly—and he served them at table. And another man said that God himself spreads his table before all men. And so Gamaliel’s actions are appropriate because God—they recognize God spreads his table before man as a servant. And so it was in the Old Testament. And so it is in the New Testament as well.

We see from this from this election of the seven and then through the apostles laying hands upon them that this is not a second-ass office. The after this solution is both proposed and then completed the apostles finally lay hands upon the men after praying over them. And this is analogous I think and should put us into mind of Numbers 11 again where Moses selects the 70.

Well actually the people select the 70. Moses then makes them officers or chieftains for the people. And what happens? God takes the spirit that was upon Moses and puts it upon the 70 for the work of administration that they’re called to do under Moses and then the 70 prophesy and receive God’s spirit.

Now, the whole point of that thing is that these people in terms of their administrative function are on a par with Moses because Moses is serving God in the power of the Holy Spirit and that’s what they should do as well. And so the deacons when the hands are laid upon the deacons for their installation into their service to the church—by service to the church as members of God’s body—so the deacons also are to be seen as fully recipients of the Holy Ghost being imparted upon them for service, for the equipping for their service.

And so we don’t have here a second-ass office. What we have is another corollary function to what the apostles then—later the elders—would do in serving the word as it were. They are to serve table. They are to serve in other ways, other administrative functions, not as a second-ass office but as a first class office.

Now I say that it was an office and we’ll just briefly mention here that in Philippians 1:1 the word deacon is used officially of the office in 1 Timothy 3 of course which we looked at the beginning of this study several months ago there are qualifications listed for the office of deacon and so we know the office was in place and since Acts 6 gives us a specific installation of a set of men to do service—specifically to do the work of being deacons—there’s good reason to believe that Acts 6 is indeed the beginning of that office and so that’s almost undisputed for most commentators. I think the text clearly spells it out.

But again, we want to stress the idea that this was not a second class office. And in fact, even though the word deacon is used in this passage of scripture several times to refer to the deacons of the tables, the apostles themselves are deacons of the word. So they’re servants as well, just like the deacons are servants, but it’s a different area of function.

That, by the way, is one of the reasons why I also don’t believe that this passage teaches that the deacons were created as assistants or apprentices to the apostles. Some people believe that. But I don’t think that’s true. I think that to see the office of the deacon as doing the dirty work until he can get up to the place of doing the clean work of the apostle or the elder shows an inherent or a latent misunderstanding of the importance of the physical world.

We don’t have a dualism here. What we have is one world created by one God and that world is created good. And the deacons when they service in the serving of tables, the administration of the church are not involving themselves in dirty work. They’re involving themselves in the application of the word of God preached to that specific area and the application of course is extremely important from the teaching of God’s word.

So they chose seven men. Now there’s some discussion also of why they chose seven. We don’t really know why they chose seven. Some people have said because there are seven days of the week they were going to take care of the needs of these widows and other poor people. And so maybe they had one for each day of the week. It’s really unclear.

It’s interesting that the church of Rome several centuries later decided that they’d always have seven deacons in a church, never more than that. So, they ended up with a whole another office of under deacons because seven wasn’t enough to do the task in some churches. I think that’s kind of silly.

I think one thing, and I haven’t really explored this all that much yet, but one possible another avenue to think through in terms of the selection of the seven was that remember we’re drawing all kinds of correlations to the selection of the 70 in Numbers 11. And you remember we talked in Numbers 11 that there were 70 men. And it’s an interesting thing to look at the statistics in Numbers. The census that was done, there were 70 clans or tribes, thousands as it were—thousand groups. And so there was a correlation of one officer or administrator for every thousand group.

And by this time in the growth of the church, it’s quite conceivable that there were somewhere around 7,000 families. And so you again would have one deacon per thousand families. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case, but it’s certainly one possibility as well if they would. It seems logical to assume that they would use the same basic order of government, tens, 50s, hundreds, and thousands and appoint these men over to the thousands just the way the officers were in the old covenant.

But I’m not saying that for sure, but it’s something to think about. Well, in the selection of the 70, it’s interesting too to look at the qualifications. Now, we said that there are further qualifications to the office given in 1 Timothy 3, and we’ll talk about that in a few weeks when we get to that section of scripture. But for now, recognize that qualifications are given in verse 3: “Looking out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom whom he may appoint over this business.”

So they had to be honest men and of course this people are—it’s quite obvious that if they’re going to handle the distribution of funds remember here that the context is the church of Jerusalem now was living fairly communally. People were selling property giving it to the apostles for distribution as the people that people had needs. So there’s a great deal of funds going on. Some commentators think that when it talks about the deacon serving a table, it’s actually the money changing tables. I think that’s a little not quite right, but there is truth to the fact he would have had to handle large sums of money.

And so, you had to have honest men here who were of honest character to avoid being sticky fingered as it were. And then they’re supposed to be full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. We’ve talked several times about the qualifications of all the old covenant officers, how they’re really emblematic of the qualifications of the Messiah who came—who was full of, filled with the Holy Spirit and as a result of that had wisdom, had honesty, had all these other characteristics for service.

And so we see the same thing here. And there’s another characteristic here that isn’t quite apparent or qualification rather. They had to be honest. They had to be full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. And then finally, it says “whom we may appoint over this business.”

Now, I take that to mean that the people had to appoint people in accordance with these qualifications—people whom the apostles could appoint. I think the indication here is that the apostles had veto power, so to speak—if people were selected that didn’t meet those qualifications. And so you could say that in some sense the qualifications were that the man be appointable by the elders or by the apostles.

Now that’s representation on the part of the people. And so it’s not tyranny from on top, but it’s also control from the men that have already been installed in that office by God. And so it’s not strictly speaking totally bottom up either. And so the people couldn’t have a popularity contest or couldn’t buy votes because the people at the top would have not allowed those people to be appointed.

So they had to be appointed. Another interesting thing about this text of scriptures, it doesn’t tell us a lot about what they were to do. It tells us more about the qualifications, doesn’t it? Listed three or maybe four qualifications here.

The only the only specific thing we know they were going to do is to serve the tables. Later in 1 Timothy 3, we also have a long list of qualifications. In Philippians 1:1, we have the office being referred to as the office of deacon, but there’s no indication of what they did. Now, we know that the serving of tables was not going to continue in the way it was in Jerusalem because the church was not going to be communal forever. That was for a very set period of time under certain circumstances. And as soon as the church expanded out, some churches had deacons. It’s not sure that all of them did, but they wouldn’t have had the same exact same sort of function because they weren’t living communally.

What did they do? Well, we don’t really know what they did. We know they were administrators—the same way that these people in Acts 6 were, but that’s about it. Now, I think that one interesting thing to think through that then is that what God is saying in these scriptures is that it’s more important to choose men who are qualified with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and with wisdom than it is to say “here are the tasks, the specific tasks we need done right now—let’s find someone who can do these tasks.” The people that are planning to do those tasks, if the tasks change—as they did in the early church—perhaps couldn’t perform those tasks as well.

The emphasis in the scriptures is not upon the function—the emphasis in the scripture is upon the men who are to be chosen: men filled with the Holy Ghost, of good report, tested as it were, proven, honest, who were discreet about their affairs. These men could handle any administrative function in the church correctly. And so there isn’t a heavy emphasis upon function. There’s a more heavy emphasis upon qualification in the man.

The man, not the task. And so it’s important for us as we look forward in the coming months here to the possible selection of elders and deacons to recognize that we should look for men who have the qualifications in terms of these qualifications that God gives us. And then appoint them to administrative tasks recognizing as I said that it’s not a second-ass office.

Now again there’s correlations at this particular the selection—the appointing of the solution, the fulfilling of the solution—with Numbers 11. We’ve talked a little bit about it. There’s also correlaries between the numbers selected, the reason for their selection and then also the fact that they weren’t a second-ass office. There’s also some correlations in the qualifications. I won’t spend a lot of time on it right now but if you look back to Numbers 11 and then Deuteronomy 1, which also talks about that selection, you’ll see that those men were men that could do the task, that were proven, wise, and discerning and able.

And so, again, we had very similar qualifications to what we had here.

So, what does this mean for us in this particular second half of the talk? Then, what it means is that when we get around to selecting deacons, we’re to select deacons who serve God through administration. Now, that means that all of us, of course, since Jesus is called a deacon, he is the great deacon under which we’re supposed to model our lives.

We’re all called to be deacons in our own spheres. Perhaps not in the institutional church, but our own spheres. That means all of us should recognize that our service individually is not primarily to men. It is first and foremost to God. And then because it is to God, it is by extension to the men that God has called us to minister to. That’s true of us individually. It’s true of us in this church as well.

We should recognize the qualifications for deacons when we get around to selecting deacons in this church. And then also we see here that the deacons were selected to meet a specific need, an administrative need. And so as we have administrative tasks in the church, we should select deacons to meet them. And finally, we should also avoid the dualism that is possibly inherent in some people’s interpretation of this passage.

So what we’ve seen in this Acts 6 passage is I think quite clearly the creation of a new office separate from the office of apostle which would become the basis for the office of elders. The same way that the twelve apostles (we’ll see as we go through scriptures) became then elders in the various churches. The same way the seven—whether they were called deacons or not at this level—became the office of deacons in the church.

The office of the apostles and the elders were to devote themselves to the teaching of God’s word and to prayer—priestly functions. The office of the seven and the deacons on the other hand were to devote themselves to administrative tasks, such as serving on tables. The office of the apostles and the elders is called the ministry—the deacons as it were, the service of the word of God.

The office of the deacons is called the ministry as it were of tables, administration, gifts. This is quite important. What this means is that when we have people in our church who have qualifications for leadership in the church, we should see that there’s a delineation of function between one group that devotes themselves to the study and teaching of God’s word and another group that devotes themselves to the function of the scriptures of the body of the church rather in accordance with that teaching of the word.

Both offices are spirit-filled offices. Both offices are set apart by God and empowered to that particular task ordained as it were in position of laying out of hands which we’ll talk more about next week. There are two separate but equal functions—I guess is the way to think about it—in the church.

And you remember that has some corollaries also. And when in Deuteronomy 18 they were told to appoint judges and officers in each of the towns. So we have the appointing of elders and deacons in the churches in the new covenant.

Finally, I wanted to have us look briefly at 1 Peter 4, verses 7-11. It sort of sums up all these things we’ve been saying and confirms them as it were.

“But the end of all things is at hand. Be therefore sober and watch unto prayer. And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves. For charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. If any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth. that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ to whom be praise and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

This verse from 1 Peter 4, verses 7-11 shows us the same thing we’ve been reading about in the church of Acts. They’re reminded that the judgment of God is at hand and of course here in first Peter we were talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, I think, is what is being talked of—the destruction of all things as it were, the coming of Jesus Christ and judgment upon the apostate church that was still at Jerusalem.

And because of that judgment to come, they were supposed to be of a sound judgment and sober spirit qualified for the office of course. And then they were to be loving one another. In the next verse down, we read that “above all things have fervent charity among yourselves, for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” We said that deacons are to serve God first and foremost and by extension of that they’re to serve God’s children and serve God’s family.

1 John 4:20 says that if we say “We love God and hate our brother, we lie and the truth isn’t in us.” Love is important. Love is—if it is true love for God—will manifest itself in the love for the people that God has called us to minister unto.

Then it says here in verses 10 and 11 that all gifts—and we know that all Christians have gifts for service—that all these gifts are used for service. “As every man had received the gift even so minister same word for deacon there—the same—one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” We receive grace of God. That grace of God is manifested in the ability we have to minister or to serve or to deacon one another.

And then in verse 11, you see those two offices being spoken of. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. If any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth.” Verse 10 says that everybody is gifted. That gift is to be given to us to serve. Verse 11 says there’s two ways of serving. The man who has the gift of speech and the man who has the gift of serving. And so we see there in an institutional sense the office of the eldership—again the ministry, the service as it were of the word of God—and the deacons, the service as it were of the tables and more directly called service here in this passage in front of us.

And so we see that both those officers will be used together for the glorification of God. That’s the end result of all our service as we minister to one another. We’re ministering to Jesus Christ. And then it says at the end of that passage that do this as the ability which God giveth. For what reason? “That God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ to whom he praise and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

One of the commentaries I was reading about in terms of the office of deacon used the example of the fig tree as a good example for deacons to follow. It’s certainly true of the institutional offices that we’ll put in this church eventually as deacons. It’s also true of each of us, those we’re called to be servants in the sense that Peter Ford tells us we’re gifted for service. It’s an important illustration to remember.

The fig tree that Jesus cursed—remember it had leaves on it, but it had no fruit. The picture commentary I read said that leaves are placed on the tree for the benefit of the tree itself, for the growth of the tree. But the fruit that comes off the tree is for the benefit of others. And that’s the same thing with us. We are gifted by God. We have various talents, gifts, and abilities we’ve been given as leaves, as it were. We’re to use the energy that God gives us through those leaves to produce fruit for other people.

If we have leaves, if we have a good church, sound doctrine, good ministry, good physical setting, good physical plant as it were, and don’t use that gift that God has given us to serve others for fruit, to minister, and to serve one another and to serve the communities we live in, then we’ll suffer the same fate that fig tree suffered, which was the curse of God.

The same thing is true of our homes. If we’ve been gifted by God, and everybody in this country has been gifted in tremendous ways, even though there’s certainly divisions of material wealth in the church, I’m sure we have here—but still, all of us are tremendously gifted in our homes. We all have dry beds to sleep in. We all have full stomachs. We have great gifts, great blessings as it were that God has given us.

But we’re to use that grace that God has shown to us, the imposition of those gifts upon us, for producing fruit for other people. We’re to serve the people in our families. We’re to serve our communities as well.

So, I was coming to church again this morning. Chris W. was having a little problem with a couple of the kids and I thought that you know, it’d be good for us men to think of another example we can think of as a service is our wives and the way that they serve the children. In my particular family—not in our home, my parents and brothers and sisters and everything—there’s been some contention over the years. Parents don’t know when they raise their kids if those kids are going to grow up reprobate, if they’re going to grow up elect. We don’t know that. We can’t know God’s mind. But we know we’re called to serve those kids and to do whatever we can to them, for them as they grow up and to give our lives for them as it were.

And so parents do that daily. They serve their children—not knowing and not expecting, not doing on the basis of reward back to them. They serve those children because God has placed them as ministers in the home to serve other people. But we also shouldn’t of course allow ourselves to get introspective—but to recognize that gifts and abilities we have, the leaves as it were, are given for the fruit of the community we live in as well.

We have a tremendous ability to minister to the families around us in our neighborhoods. We know the truth and we know that truth sets us free. Sets us free for service to show the grace that God has given us to others in our neighborhood, to convince them, to show them, to proclaim them the gospel of Jesus Christ and the fruit—the great fruit that’s given to us through that gospel.