Articles
Are Those Really Deacons in Acts 6?
In a recent article, I referred to the seven men chosen in Acts 6 as ‘deacons.’ I was challenged on this point to explain my reason for describing them as such. My immediate explanation seemed satis-factory, yet I was asked to provide my reasoning to the rest of the church since many may not be aware of the things I had shared, and may likewise have objected to what I wrote. Hence, this article.
It should be understood that the word “deacon” is used in scripture to refer both to an official church office, and generally to a servant, even as “elder” may refer to an office, or an older man. Context often dictates the intended meaning, although it is not always clear. Phoebe was called a deacon in Rom. 16:1. From 1 Tim. 3:11 we may infer she was not an officer. It’d be easy for me to explain away my article by stating that I was referring to “deacon” in the general sense of the word, but I wasn’t. If they are not officially deacons, then what even is a deacon in the church? Seriously!
The word “deacon” (diakoneo) “in its most basic, concrete sense” (according to Kittels’ N.T. Greek) is: (a) ‘to wait at table, (b) to care for.’” This is liter-ally the task assigned to the seven in Acts 6!
Most Christians know that those who hold the office of deacon in the church are special qualified (1 Tim. 3) servants appointed to attend to the needs of the brethren so that other workers may focus on God’s word, evangelism, and prayer.
But, I ask, how do you know this? 1 Timothy 3 says nothing about the job description, nor why this is a needful position in the church. If one does not accept that the men chosen in Acts 6 are deacons, then we have no scriptural teaching in the New Testament concerning the job de-scription of the deacons and why they are needed. Does it make sense that the Holy Spirit would create this office, but never explain what would be their role? “Elder” job descriptions are all over the place—deacons have Acts 6.
Some argue that these are not yet officially deacons, as Stringer in his Acts installment of the GoT commentary series. He reasons that a derivative of the word deacon is also used in Acts 6:4 of the apostles “ministering the word.” To sum up his point, just because the apostles served (diakonia) God’s Word, doesn’t make them deacons (officially). I concur that point, but I think Luke is using a play on words. The actual deacons are serving the widows, and the apostles will continue to serve the Word. Stringer continued: “these men were chosen only for one particular task— ‘this business’ (v. 3). Really? In overseeing “this business” does that strictly preclude other such business? Who believes that if another service need arose on the heels of Acts 6 that the church would have been back to square one trying to figure out what to do and who could help? DOGE (or DOCE) would be all over this one! Or, would the church not immediately have looked to these seven men who’d been examined, tested (1 Tim. 3:10) and found worthy? As to them merely being deacons generally, how much more official could it have been than to have been appointed by the lay-ing on of the apostles hands (Acts 6:6)?
I possess eight (physical) commentaries on Acts. Stringer’s is the only one that basically said, “no.” Two remarked that the men are not specifically called dea-cons, and then added: “although they may be.” Consider the rest...
“Since these men were to care for the daily “diaconia” or ministrations (the word from which deacon is derived), we could say that they were indeed “deacons” of the church. We then also know the formal setting apart was the placing of these men into this office (Don De Welt).”
Gareth Reese: “It’s from the word “serve,” i.e. from the work they did – that we determine these seven men chosen were “deacons.” We’re not told in any defi-nite language they were “deacons,” still they did the work of deacons. In fact, the word “deacon” isn’t found in the book of Acts as an official designation.”
J.W. McGarvey added: The title of the office here created is not given, and from
this circumstance some scholars have failed to identify it with that of deacon, mentioned in Phil. 1 and 1 Tim. 3. But, while the name of the office is absent, terms are used which show plainly that the office is the same. If the question had been one about ruling, and the seven had been appointed to rule, there could cer-tainly be no hesitation about styling them rulers. The case before us is a perfect parallel. The question was about the “daily diakonian,” and the seven were chosen to “diakonein.” Why, then, hesitate to call them “diaconoi?” Indeed, the verb “diakonein, here used to express the chief duty of the office, is the very one which in 1 Tim. 3 is twice rendered...“serve as deacons.”
Consider a brief history of law enforcement as an illustration to our question. The question would be, at what point in the following brief historical timeline could we spot the presence of police? Keep in mind the meaning of the word “police” according to the American Heritage Dictionary: “Regulation and control of the affairs of a community, especially with respect to maintenance of order, law, health, morals, safety, and other matters affecting the public welfare.”
Here we go… According to badgeandwallet.com, “In 1285, the Statute of Win-chester made enforcing the law a social responsibility. Any person who didn't report or try to stop a crime could be prosecuted. In 1631, Boston became the first U.S city to establish a night watch. In the late 18th and 19th Centuries, “regulators” (vigilantes) became commonplace in many U.S cities. Their role was to enforce order in areas where there was none…It was not until 1829 that the Metropolitan Police Act was passed and the London Metropolitan PD was formed...NYC was the first to have an official police department in 1844.”
Now, at which point would you say some form of “police” were present? Did soci-ety police one another? How about when they did away with that and established a more organized “night watch?” Could it be rightly said that the regulators po-liced their cities? Or, was it not until the Metro Police act in London in 1829. If by statute it was decreed in 1285 that the government will hold me accountable if I fail to enforce the law, guess what, I AM THE POLICE (a childhood dream of mine)!
I’m compelled by the officiality of the deacons appointment (Acts 6:6), by the very meaning of the term being identical to their assigned role, as well as the absence of any other explanation as to their role in scripture. How does the saying go? “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck.” If it looks like a deacon, is appointed like a deacon, does the work of a deacon, and is called a “deacon” it’s probably (no, it is) a deacon.
