Father Knabenbauer's Commentary on Acts of Apostles 6:1-7

 

Father Joseph Knabenbauer: Commentary on Acts 6:1–7 

See how from the very beginning evils were not only external but also internal (Chrysostom). But this demonstrates the proven character (τὸ δόκιμον) of the apostles, who were assailed on all sides—both from without and within—and yet on all sides carried off the palm of victory (Oecumenius).

Acts 6:1. Now in those days, when the number of disciples was increasing, a murmuring (γογγυσμὸς) arose—a complaint accompanied by some indignation—on the part of the Hellenists (τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν), i.e., Jews who spoke Greek and were of foreign origin, against the Hebrews (Palestinian Jews), because their widows were being overlooked (παρεθεωροῦντο), neglected, and given lower priority in the daily ministry, in the distribution of aid to their widows. As Codex D indicates by its reading, and as the circumstances themselves seem to require, ministers had already been appointed from among the Hebrews for such distribution (Belser). But these ministers valued Palestinian Jews (who spoke Hebrew/Aramaic and were born in the Holy Land) more than the Hellenists, who were of foreign origin and used a non-sacred, foreign tongue. Similarly, Galileans, as inhabitants of a mixed region, were held in lower esteem by the Judeans, the inhabitants of Judea (cf. John 7:52). Already appear the seeds of a certain national vanity and rivalry.

That this murmuring and indignation arose from a genuine cause, and was therefore justified, the apostles themselves acknowledge by their very manner of acting. For as the number grew, not all were equally perfect, and it is not surprising that in such a multitude there were some imperfect members (Dionysius the Carthusian). It could also easily have happened that, as the community expanded, those Hebrew ministers were no longer sufficient for all tasks, being too few in number; hence they provided first and more generously for their own countrymen than for others, and thus gave occasion for complaints.

Finally, the complaints were brought to the apostles.

Acts 6:2. But the Twelve, having summoned the multitude of disciples, said: It is not right (οὐκ ἀρεστόν)—it is not pleasing, it cannot be approved (Bellarmine/Belser); cf. Acts 12:3; “it is not pleasing nor can it please” (Bengel)—for us to leave the word of God and serve tables. That is, we ourselves cannot perform that office of temporal dispensation. It does not follow that they had been occupied in such dispensation up to this point; rather, from this response the opposite is clear. “It is not to be thought that the apostles served tables, nor was it then a matter of them taking this office upon themselves; but they spoke as is customary when we wish to deny that it is our part to have care for a certain matter” (Patrizi; Chrysostom already hinted at this, and Fillion, Belser, Wendt explicitly state it). Nor does it stand in the way (as some suppose) that the proceeds from sales were brought to the apostles’ feet (Acts 2:45; 4:35–37). The money was handed to them; but the administration, purchasing of goods, and distribution were entrusted by the apostles to others.

They remedy the complaints in the best way: they elect to increase the number of ministers, and ministers are chosen from among the Hellenists.

 Acts 6:3. Look then (ἐπισκέψασθε)—because we ourselves cannot by our own efforts supply the defect (the connection is almost indicated by the particle δέ: “look then,” scil. because it is not fitting for us to undertake that)—brethren, select from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, who therefore can be recognized by external signs, by one or another charism, to possess the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and who are known to be endowed with prudence in their manner of acting. Wisdom, by which all things are suitably ordered to their end in the administration and distribution of goods and money, is clearly needed. Oecumenius and Theophylact hold that wisdom is required specifically to counter the slanderous talk (διαβολήν) of the widows; it must be present so that those inexperienced and unskilled in temporal affairs do not squander ecclesiastical resources and misallocate them to those for whom they are not intended (Salmanticenses).

The apostles also wisely concede the election to the faithful, “lest they seem to act out of favoritism toward certain individuals, they permit the community to judge” (Chrysostom); they reserve to themselves only the determination of the number to be elected and the actual conferring of that dignity: whom we may appoint over this work, who therefore, having received authority from the apostles, may be set over that office.

Critics ask why the apostles decreed that exactly seven should be elected. Perhaps because this number, added to existing ministers, was sufficient. Others speculate about seven districts of the city, seven domestic assemblies (cf. Fillion), the sacred number seven, the seven angels standing before God, the seven spirits, etc. (cf. Salmanticenses, Lapide, Calmet).

Acts 6:4. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. Since τῇ προσευχῇ is given with the article and “prayer” is joined to the preaching of the gospel, the term here seems to refer to public divine worship, of which the principal part was the sacrifice of the Eucharist (Belser). Calmet, Patrizi (cf. Acts 3:1; 16:13, 16), and Fillion also explain it as public prayer, and rightly so. They say: we will persevere (προσκαρτερήσομεν), we will be assiduously devoted. By this reasoning, they also tacitly acknowledge that up to this point they had devoted their care and effort to these very things. Dionysius the Carthusian makes a practical application here: “O if only prelates would attend to these things, of whom already many are occupied with temporal affairs more than is necessary, fitting, or lawful,” etc., and the Salmanticenses similarly.

Acts 6:5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude. What the apostles proposed, all approve. And they used the right granted to them and chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, who by this encomium is declared to have excelled the rest in firmness of faith, in understanding of Christ’s doctrine, and in the conspicuous gifts of the Holy Spirit within himself; cf. vv. 8 ff. And Philip (cf. 8:5 ff.), and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch. Since he alone is explicitly called a foreigner who had previously given his name to the Jewish religion, all the rest are to be considered of Jewish origin by birth. Their names are Greek; were they therefore all Hellenists? From the names alone this certainly does not follow, for the Apostle Philip, Andrew, and Mark also bore foreign names and yet were not Hellenists. But for another reason it seems probable that Hellenists were elected, because the cause of that murmuring had been found among the former Hebrew ministers.

Acts 6:6. These they set before the apostles, that they might approve them and confer authority upon them. And praying, they laid hands on them (οἵτινες, Codex D). By the very prayer and laying on of hands it is sufficiently declared that not only is the ministry of tables committed to them, but that they are constituted and consecrated as sacred ministers of the Church. For the laying on of hands was already in the Old Covenant a symbol and, as it were, a vehicle by which the one laying on hands bestowed something upon another. Thus Moses is commanded to lay hands on Joshua, and Joshua was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses laid his hands on him (Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9). By the laying on of hands the Levites were set apart and dedicated to the Lord’s ministry from the people (Num. 8:10). By the laying on of hands a victim was presented to the Lord as a vicarious sacrifice. By the laying on of hands in the New Testament healing benefits are conferred (Mark 6:5; 7:32; 8:23; Luke 4:40); thus Jesus blesses little children (Mark 10:16). By this rite the Holy Spirit is conferred (Acts 8:17 ff.; 19:6); whence: “Stir up the grace of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6; cf. 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22).

And that they were consecrated as sacred ministers is also apparent because they are occupied in the preaching of the word of God (Acts 6:10; 8:5 ff.). Therefore they are to be considered deacons in the true sense of the word. And because the consecration and distribution of the Eucharist used to be joined with the agape meals, we can and ought to call them ministers of both the sacred and the profane table (cf. Baronius, ad an. 33, n. 279; Lapide, Calmet, Belser). “No Catholic doubts that these are those whom the Church has co-opted into the order of deacons” (Patrizi), which is certainly the opinion of the vast majority and is true; however, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others deny it.

That those seven were ordained to the diaconate by the apostles and were deacons, Irenaeus clearly indicates (Against Heresies 3.12.10; 4.15.1; PG 7, 904, 1043). And that deacons were instituted by the apostles, Clement of Rome generally affirms (1 Clement 42; PG 1, 293). Deacons are frequently mentioned together with bishops and presbyters as sacred ministers in the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (To the Trallians 2; To the Magnesians 2, 6; To the Philadelphians 7; To Polycarp 8; PG 5, 664, 668, 616, 704, 713). Justin Martyr reports that deacons carry the Eucharist to the absent (First Apology 65; PG 6, 429).

Irenaeus (1.26.3; PG 7, 681), Epiphanius (Haer. 25; PG 41, 321), and Augustine (On Heresies 3; PL 42, 26) hold that the heresy of the Nicolaitans originated from Nicholas. Yet they consider him personally innocent, and Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius relate how, without his own fault, he was the occasion of that heresy and corruption (Stromata 3.4; PG 8, 1132; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.29; PG 20, 21). Concerning the others, only uncertain traditions are narrated from apocrypha (cf. Lapide, Calmet); Epiphanius enumerates them among the 72 disciples of Christ (Haer. 20; PG 41, 280; 42, 833). Prochorus is also said to have been a disciple of the Apostle John; there exist the Acts of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John, written by his disciple Prochorus (see Acts of John, ed. Zahn, Erlangen 1880).

Acts 6:7. And the word of the Lord increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was multiplied greatly; and a great multitude of the priests were obedient to the faith. ὑπήκουον (were obedient) refers to what happened frequently; often priests embraced the faith, followed the virtue of faith, lent docile ears to the proclamation of faith, and thus obeyed the faith, i.e., devoted themselves to the virtue of faith. Calmet notes well: “A remarkable thing: where Christ had been slain, there preaching increased. And not only were some of the disciples not scandalized seeing the apostles scourged, others threatened, others tempting the Spirit, others murmuring, but the number of believers increased greatly; after the temptation it grew. Consider how great is God’s kindness; for many believed from among those who had stirred up the crowds to murder.” Priests had returned from Babylon in the time of Ezra to the number of 4,289 (Ezra 2:36–49); hence the number of priests in the city can be considered quite large.

Response to Source Criticism

Some critics contend that what is narrated here is drawn from another source; thus Peine (p. 184), Hilgenfeld (p. 385). Why they posit a source different from the preceding, they are moved by these objections: namely, that mention is suddenly made here of the daily ministry for the poor, of which nothing appears in what precedes; suddenly Hellenists are introduced, whom it cannot be gathered from the preceding were living in the city. But these objections are easily resolved.

For in Acts 2:45, “as each had need,” distribution was made to individuals from the common goods. Therefore it is clear in itself that there must have been those who undertook this dispensation, and thus this ministry; this was certainly demanded by the matter itself and necessarily required. Likewise it was necessary that some be appointed to whose care the money brought by the faithful to the apostles’ feet would be entrusted, and upon whom it would devolve to spend that money for the common good. Hence all the prerequisites are found from which that ministry necessarily follows.

That Hellenists are suddenly introduced can by no means be an objection. The writer knew that many were and had been in the city; he knew this was known to all or became known from his very narrative; and immediately in Acts 6:9 he mentions the synagogue of the Hellenists. What need was there to state explicitly what clearly and immediately shines forth from the very narrative of events?

Then, some attribute v. 7 again to another source or another author, and Weiss also contends that this verse is plainly superfluous and of no importance for what follows. Is it so? Does not rather such progress of the Christian movement best explain why the adversaries now break out into open persecution, into calumnies, into murder?

CONTINUE