The Seven in Acts 6 as a Ministry Team by Phillip W. Sell
Ministry teams are thriving in every local church congregation. These teams form and dispatch themselves in the areas of ministry where they feel the most need. To deal with new emerging challenges that come with the healthy growth in the church, Christians are to work together as a team. We refer to this team as the “ministry team.” But the term “ministry team” carries an adverse connotation in the North American churches, since the “team” is highly associated with business corporations.
However, the ministry team exemplified the apostolic church’s model, enhancing the ministry. If we correctly understand the historical text, the Seven in Acts 6:1-7 formed the ministry team. The proposition of the article is to inform the readers that the apostolic concession to the Seven is a temporary ministry-team formation to deal with a certain situation for the time being. Therefore, we should not use the following pattern as a basis for implementing the ongoing office of deacons in the church.
The apostles themselves carried out specific duties assigned to the Seven prior to their appointment. So, those Seven were probably not entitled to serve as deacons. As Pelikan affirms, the office of deacons became normative not earlier than the late second or third century. Thus, the critical exegesis of our time is more likely to label the Seven in Acts 6 as deacons rather than referring to them as “the Seven.”
Sell, the journal’s author, has shed some insight into the background of the appointment of the Seven in the apostolic church. He analyzes verses 1 and 7 to help us understand the rudimentary truths in Acts 6:1-7. Verse 1 indicates that many were converted to Christianity, and verse 7 clearly states that the church was exploding with growth now. The underlying event that led the apostles to appoint the Seven is in verses 2-6. Had they not dealt with godly wisdom and sensitivity, that event could have significantly hindered the apostles’ effort to expand the church. Conflict in the church could have overturned the rapid growth of the church as well as created a thick partition between the Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews in the church. The wise actions of the apostles that resolved this conflict can edify our present-day church when similar conflicts arise.
According to Sell, the problem in the apostolic church was more serious than the Grecian widows being overlooked in the “daily distribution of food” (v. 1). There was an accusation against Hebraic Jews that they should not assume dominance over Hellenistic Jews only because of their birthplace and language. They had no ground to treat Greek-speaking Jews as second-class citizens. Their detrimental and low views of Hellenistic Jews had become a desperate menace to the wonderfully growing church.
The tension between Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews in verses 2-6 extended beyond the unequal distribution of food to the Grecian Jews; it also included their perceptions of prejudicial treatment. Despite the fact that apostles were overseeing the charitable arrangement of distributing food to the needy, including widows, the Aramaic-speaking Jews were charged with prejudicial treatment of Greek-speaking Jews. This was a serious charge, and the apostles treated it very seriously. For this very reason, the Seven were chosen among the brothers. Therefore, the selection of the Seven had more to do with allegations of prejudicial treatment among brothers than food distribution.
Upon the apostles’ beseeching the disciples, the Seven were chosen from among themselves for the ministry of food distribution. The apostles treated both the preaching of the Word and distribution of food equally as a ministry. For this matter, they selected men “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (v. 3). The apostles laid their hands upon them and prayed for them. This act is the mark of commission for the ministry. As Sell writes, the thriving church in verse 7 shows the successful ministry of the Seven, followed by the narration of conflict in verses 2-6.
Sell assumes that the ministry of the Seven may have come to an end after the resolution of the conflict in the church. Nonetheless, there is no hint about the duration of their ministry. He has a basis to claim that the designated ministry for the Seven did not last long because of the persecution. In Acts 7, Stephen, who is one of the Seven, was murdered heinously for his testimony. This barbaric persecution continues in chapter 8, which indicates that, except for the apostles, all the disciples were scattered into Judea and Samaria.
The biblical expositors have been debating whether laying their hands on the seven apostles was an ordination for lifetime office or simply a commissioning for a certain period of time for a specific, short-term mission. The various Bible passages appear to support both interpretations in different contexts. Yet some of the biblical passages suggest strongly that the apostles’ laying hands on the Seven was not an act of ordination for lifetime office but simply authorizing and confirming the Seven to work on behalf of the apostles. They were commissioned to a specific task of the time: a short-term mission to resolve the conflict in the church.
Despite the fact that many argue from this passage to support their view for the continuity of the deacon’s office in the church, Sell maintains that the Seven were not mentioned as the deacons in the passage other than referring to their work as “ministry” in general. Next, classifying the Seven as the deacons does not do enough justice to their work. Since they were assigned to an office that had to deal only with the everyday physical and temporal needs of the church, the position was looked upon as inferior to other spiritual roles, such as elders. If this interpretation were to be true, then it also would have demarcated the role of the deacons to only be satisfying the needy people in the church. However, the case was otherwise. Stephen and Philip, among the Seven, were actively involved in the ministry of the Word. Stephen was even performing miraculous signs and evangelizing and defending his faith in the masses. The Book of Acts does not support the idea that deacons are only for non-spiritual roles, like meeting people’s needs, not the ministry of the Word.
Therefore, the commission of the Seven in Acts 6:1-7 should be regarded as a pattern for the formation of the “ministry team,” instead of viewing it as the ordination of the first deacons. This particular event in the church’s history should be viewed as a unique opportunity for us to edify the present-day church to come together to solve problems or take on challenges together as a team in the church ministry.
EVALUATION OF THE JOURNAL
Sell’s writing is clear and full of insight. He does not assume that the passage is about the discontinuity of the deacon’s office in the church. Instead, he postulates his arguments to make a case for the passage as the pattern to form the “ministry team.” And he offers four valuable principles of teamwork that can be seen in Acts 6:1-7 to address the problems in our ministry.
He identifies the first principle of any teamwork as the need for a clear understanding and purpose of the mission. Without clarity of purpose in the mission, confusion may rule out the success of the teamwork. Their level of performance and clear understanding of their mission or purpose are solely responsible for their team’s success in the ministry. They should be purpose-driven and mission-oriented.
The second principle, as he articulates it, is to ensure that each team member has a clearly defined role. When all team members understand their role, responsibility, and contribution to the team, they possess everything necessary to achieve the team’s vision. In Acts 6, the apostles and the Seven had their own roles and shares of the ministry. Moreover, the roles should be clearly outlined to ensure that each team member can fulfill their responsibilities without overlapping with others.
Recruitment of team members is listed as the third principle of teamwork. As per the division of labor, we also need people of character, quality, and essential abilities to meet our team’s vision. Although Acts 6 does not specify particular gifts and talents as qualifications for the Seven in the ministry, it does require that they be “known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom,” which is considered a high-standard qualification (v. 3).
The fourth principle is the need for motivation for the team to work its way. The success of highly qualified and capable members hinges on their ability to act. The team should be given freedom and authority to work within the bounds of the team’s vision. Unnecessary obstructions, overly bureaucratic procedures, and excessive control of teamwork by the authorizing body can hinder collaboration.
Equally, we can see in Acts 6 that the apostles did not meddle in the affairs of the Seven. On the contrary, they appealed to the congregation to find people from among themselves. They did not handpick people of their choice. Then, they also publicly “conveyed a modicum of apostolic authority” to the Seven so that they might be able to accomplish their task through teamwork.
All the principles are very practical and should be taken as guiding principles for the ministry. Sell’s assessment of the passage also provides his readers a clear understanding of the original text that is used to define the work of the Seven as “ministry” rather than “deacon.” His brief word study of the uses of the same Greek term helps people without Greek knowledge know that the term “deacon” is not used in the passage. This is a tremendous leap for the laypeople to read and comprehend the passage in a new way.
APPLICATION
In the essay, Sell is not arguing whether there should be an office of deacons or not in the church. For the Greek term “diakonos” is not used to refer to the Seven as deacons. Instead, he is proposing that we should view the passage as a way to deal with unique problems that come along with the growth of the church. The way the apostles addressed the problem in the church in Jerusalem can be a prototype for our generation and generations to come. Thus he laid out four principles to back up his arguments for the Seven as the “ministry team” and invited us to take them into consideration for our ministry.
However, his argument for the Seven possibly being commissioned for the short-term mission is not persuasive. Of course, the disciples were scattered during persecution. The reason we see Stephen and Philip serving the Word of God in different geographical regions corroborates the claim. But can we take the position to claim that the problem in the church in Jerusalem might have been solved after their dispersion? Is it not possible that the same charge of “prejudicial treatment” existed even after their dissemination in different regions?
Thus, I do not buy Sell’s assumption that the ministry of the Seven might have ended shortly after. By all odds, they were not deacons, but their ministry might not have halted right after the problem was solved. I think the faithful ones might have been in the ministry for a long time so that the same charge or problem in the church would not emerge time and again.
I appreciate the author’s concept of teamwork and emphasizing the ministry as a “team ministry.” My personal experience also shows that teamwork is always important for the success of the ministry team. I have learned about the servanthood ministry in a team where people of different personalities, characters, talents, and skills come together for a common cause or mission. In the team ministry, we learn to empathize with one another.
My past couple of years of ministry tenure in the Operation Mobilization and Gospel for Asia ministries were based on teamwork. In OM, we were teams that were dispatched to different parts of the country for short-term missions. I learned to serve teammates at my best level and achieve the goals of our mission. It was effective in the mission field when we worked as a team. We defended each other in the hostile area where Gospel was not welcomed. In the midst of confusion and doubts about our goal, we discussed together and came up with ideas that helped us to accomplish our mission successfully.
Role of each team member was defined clearly. When team members did not function as a unit in the ministry team, constant problems and confusion were inevitable in the team. So, we knew our parts to play in the team. I never knew that we encroached on each other’s dominion of the ministry, except for those who were not ready to humble themselves. Every action has a reaction. Hence, we were pushed to limit our time in one particular place for evangelism and had to move to other parts of the country for ministry. This shows how much ministry can be affected in both positive and negative ways through team ministry. If the team remains intact, achieving the goal becomes a realistic possibility. If a member of the team does not cooperate with them, it can ruin your mission.
