168
ἀρεστόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς, καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, διακονεῖν
τραπέζαις.
those to whom it was done’. But τραπέζαις presents a further difficulty ; does it refer to the tables of exchange for money, a rendering which claims sup- port from Matt. xxi. 12, xxv. 27, Luke xix. 23, John ii. 15, or to tables for food, Luke xvi. 21, xxii. 21, 30? Pos- sibly the use of the word in some pas- sages in the N.T., and also the fact that the διακονία was καθημερινή, may indi- cate the latter, and the phrase may refer to the actual serving and superintending at the tables at which the poor sat, or at all events to the supplying in a general way those things which were necessary for their bodily sustenance. Zéckler, Apfostelgeschichte (second edition), refers the word tothe ministration of the gifts of love offered at the Eucharist in the various Christian houses (so Scaliger understood the expression of the Agapz). Mr. Humphry reminds us that the words were quoted by Latimer (1548) in a ser- mon against some bishops of his time who were comptrollers of the mint.
Ver. 3. ἐπισκέψασθε οὖν: the verb, though frequently used by St. Luke in both his writings, is not elsewhere used in the sense of this verse, ‘‘ look ye out,” cf. σκέπτεσθαι in Gen. ΧΙ. 33.— µαρτυρουµένους, cf. Heb. xi. 2, 39, and cf. 4, 5, and 1 Tim. v. 10, Acts x. 22, xxii. 12, also xvi. 2; cf. its use also in Clem. Rom., Cor., xvii., I; xviii. I, etc. ; Ignat.,. Phil., xi., 13; Ἔβλες, Xi. 2.) See also the interesting parallels in Deiss- mann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 93. In Jos., Ant., iii., 2, 5, and xv., I0, 5, it is used as here, but of hostile testimony in Matt. xxiii. 31, John xviii. 23.— ἑπτὰ: why was the number chosen? Various answers have been given to the question: (1) that the number was fixed upon because of the seven gifts of the Spirit, Isa. xi. 2, Rev. i. 4; (2) that the number was appointed with regard to the different elements of the Church: three Hellenists, three Hebrews, one Proselyte; (3) that the number was regulated by the fact that the Jerusalem of that day may have been divided into seven dis- tricts; (4) that the number was sug-
gested by the Hebrew sacred number— " seven; (5) Zéckler thinks that there is no hypothesis so probable as that the small Jerusalem ἐκκλησίαι Kat’ οἶκον were seven in number, each with its special worship, and its special business con- nected with alms-giving and distribu-
4. ἐπισκέψασθε οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἄνδρας ἐξ ὑμῶν µαρτυρου-
tion—alms-giving closely related to the Eucharist or to the Love-Feasts; (6) the derivation of the number from Roman usage on the analogy of the septemviri epulones advocated by Dean Plumptre, officials no doubt well known to the Libertini (see also B.D.? ‘ Deacon,” and the remarks of Ramsay, S#. Ρατ], Ῥ. 375, on Roman organisation and its value). This is far more probabie than that there should be any connection between the appointment of the Seven and the two heathen inscriptions quoted by Dr. Hatch (Bampton Lectures, p. 50, note 56), in which the word διάκονος is used of the assistants in the ritual of sacrificial and temple feasts at Anactorium in Acar- nania and Metropolis in Lydia (see on the other hand, Hort, Ecclesia, p. 210), for in the incident before us the word διάκονος is not used at all, and later in the history, xxi. 8, Philip is described not by that title but as one of the Seven. Nor is there any real likeness to be found be- tween the office assigned to the Seven and that of the Chazzan or officer of the Jewish synagogue (ὑπηρέτης, Luke iv. 20),who corresponded rather to our parish- clerk or verger, and whose duties were confined to the synagogue; a nearer Jewish parallel is to be found in the