The apostles knew that this dissension was not good for the
community of believers. Accordingly, they assembled the
church and gave the following instruction. It was not fitting
that the apostolic work of teaching the "Word of God"
should be made subservient to a program of meeting physical needs,
particularly when others could handle such a chore. Thus,
with a stroke of diplomatic brilliance, the twelve instructed the
offended disciples to select, from among themselves, seven men whom
they might assign to this task.
These brothers would need to have a "good
report," i.e., a solid, spiritual reputation (cf. 1
Timothy 3:7), and be "full of the Spirit and of
wisdom." That they should be wise is self-evident; they
would be dealing with a sensitive issue. But what is the
meaning of "full of the Spirit"? Clearly, it does
not denote a miraculous gift. The seven did not receive a
supernatural measure of the Spirit's power until the apostles
laid hands upon them, which was after their appointment
([verse] 6). "Full of the
Spirit" almost certainly suggests that these men were rich
students of the Old Testament Scriptures, and that the influence of
the Spirit, via that medium (cf. Ephesians 6:17), had
made a dramatic impact in their lives. In other words, they were
godly men.
The apostles would continue steadfastly in prayer and the
"ministry (diakoniai--a service) of the
Word." The twelve's solution to the potential
problem "pleased the whole multitude." This
reveals that even in the face of stress, the disciples HAD A MIND
TO BE UNITED; they were amenable to remedy. And so, seven
were chosen to exercise this responsibility. It is
interesting to note that each brother had a Greek name, doubtless
suggesting that these men were Hellenists. As Robertson
notes, this selection reflects "consummate wisdom" in
the effort to stop the murmuring.
Stephen is mentioned first. He was a man "full of
faith (later demonstrated in his courageous stand before the
Sanhedrin) and of the Holy Spirit...." His name
means "crown," and he had the distinction of being the
first disciple to win the crown of martyrdom for the faith (cf.
[Acts] 7:9; [Acts]
22:20). Philip is identified later as a
prominent "evangelist" who labored among the Samaritans
([Acts] 8:5ff; [Acts]
21:8), thus suggesting that his "servant"
work in Jerusalem was temporary. Prochorus is said to have
written a biography of the apostle John, and Nicanor, Timon, and
Parmenas are mentioned in later history as martyrs for the Cause
(Sadler, 111). Nicolaus' name generates some
controversy. A few of the early church fathers (e.g.,
Irenaeus) claimed that he defected from the faith and founded the
sect of the "Nicolaitans," condemned by Jesus in the
book of Revelation (Revelation 2:6). Others,
(e.g., Clement of Alexandria) suggested that the heretical sect
arose as a result of a misunderstanding of Nicolaus'
teaching. One should hesitate to cast a shadow over the
reputation of an ancient servant of Christ without the strongest
sort of evidence.
For centuries there has been much needless debate over
whether these seven men were "deacons" in the official
sense (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy
3:8). What difference does it make? That aside,
this context provides an apostolic precedent as to an expedient
manner of choosing church leaders.
After the selection of these men, the apostles offered
prayer, and laid their hands upon them. This act was
doubtless to bestow spiritual gifts (cf. [Acts]
8:18; [Acts] 19:6).
Since there are no successors of the apostles, it is obvious that
miraculous gifts cannot be received in this fashion in this modern
era.
The Effects Of The Remedy -- As UNITY WAS RESTORED among
the unsettled members of the Jerusalem congregation, the growth of
the new movement continued. Luke says "the Word of God
increased." This is a figure known as metonymy, where
the cause is stated for the effect. The disciples
actually multiplied as a result of the proclamation of the
Word. Both "increased" and
"multiplied" are imperfect tense forms, revealing the
steady growth of the Lord's people.
In a fascinating comment, Luke states that "a great
company of priests were obedient to the faith." Is that
not a bit curious?
The priests, along with the Levites, ministered in the
services of the temple. It has been estimated that there were
some 18,000 priests serving, according to their respective orders,
in the temple ceremonies. Today, they would commonly be
designated as the "clergy."
Is it not the case that, generally speaking, religious
leaders represent the most difficult class to convert? Why,
then, this massive acceptance of the Gospel on the part of these
Hebrew priests? There are a couple of factors which may help
supply the answer.
First, the imagery of the temple was designed by God to be
preparatory to the coming of the Lord and the implementation of the
Christian system. Carefully read Hebrews 9:1ff,
and observe the detailed description of the tabernacle arrangement
(a prototype of the temple) and ordinances which constituted
"a figure for the time present"
([Hebrews] 9:9; cf. Colossians
2:16-17). The Mosaic law was a schoolmaster
(pedagogue), whose function it was to bring the Hebrews to
Christ--and through them, all others (Galatians
3:24).
Apparently, many of those priests (perhaps like the noble
Zacharias--Luke 1:5ff) had learned the lessons
of that symbolism and thus were prime candidates for the Gospel
message. And they happily embraced it.
Second, there may be a connection between this narrative and
the conclusion of Matthew's Gospel. There, it is
recorded that the chief priests and Pharisees made special
petition to Pilate to secure the tomb of Jesus, in view of the
Lord's declaration that He would rise from the dead.
Accordingly, the sepulcher was made "sure," i.e.,
sealed by Roman authority, with guards posted at the site
([Matthew] 27:62-66).
However, early on that Sunday morning there was a great
earthquake, and an angel rolled the great door-stone aside.
The guards became immobile--as if they were dead.
Eventually, some of them went into Jerusalem and "told unto
the chief priests all the things that were come to
pass" ([Matthew] 28:11).
Could this testimony have softened the hearts of many of the
priests, thus preparing them for the Gospel eventually? This
is a possibility. There must be some explanation for this
extraordinary circumstance.
Luke further states that the priests were "obedient to
the faith." Two points are of special interest.
First, "faith" is not a reference to personal belief in
Christ; rather, it is "the faith." The expression
denotes an objective body of Truth. It is the Gospel system
(cf. Galatians 1:23; 1 Timothy 5:8;
Jude 3). The Christian economy involves facts
to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be
received. This context emphasizes the obedience that is
imperative in becoming a Christian (Acts 2:38;
Acts 16:31; Acts 22:16). The New
Testament warns of the disastrous consequence of not obeying the
Gospel (1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter
4:17).
Second, "were obedient" represents a verb that
derives from two roots, hupo, "under," and
akouo, "to hear." It suggests one who
places himself under another as a responsive student. These
Jewish priests were transferring their allegiance from Moses to
Christ. Their actions plainly reveal they understood the
Mosaic regime was not operative as a means of salvation.
Redemption is obtained on the basis of Christ's sacrifice,
not in the offerings of animals (cf. Hebrews
10:1ff).
