Presbyterian Polity Answers: The Nature of the Meeting of the Jerusalem Church in which the First Deacons were Ordained

[Sam Jer]

Acts 6:1-7:

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Hello brethren,
I have a question on scriptural Presbyterian polity. In the above passage, it seems the apostles called "the multitude of the disciples" to nominate the first deacons. What is this multitude? Is this a way to elect deacons, or the only right way to go about it?
Further, what bearing, if any, does this have on teaching and ruling elders? Is this why the Free Church insisted at the disruption that the local congergation has a say in who is called to it, and the FPCG says that:

No man is to be ordained a minister for a particular congregation, if they of that congregation can shew just cause of exception against him.

I ask that only those who believe in Presbyterianism answer this thread.

 

[Northern Crofter]

In the above passage, it seems the apostles called "the multitude of the disciples" to nominate the first deacons. What is this multitude?

The "multitude" = the assembled congregation in Jerusalem (the Greek word can be translated "congregation" or "assembly")

Is this a way to elect deacons, or the only right way to go about it?

It depends who you ask. Some of the generally accepted principles of presbyterian polity that come from Acts 6 are:

1. The Apostles identified a problem (vv.1-2) - this justifies petitioning a session/presbytery/synod/general assembly
2. The Apostles called the congregation together to explain the solution (v.2) - this justifies the calling to a public meeting of a congregation/presbytery/synod/general assembly
3. The Apostles stated a specific number of men to be set apart for service along with the necessary qualifications (v.3) - this justifies calling for adding to the number of officers the number needed from those qualified, versus calling all who are qualified
4. The Apostles identified 2 distinct offices (v.4) - my view of this is admittedly in the minority (that the 2 offices are ministers of the Word and those who help them rule): I believe the office of "deacon" is the traditional office of elder (opposite the priest) carried over from the model of the previous dispensation (Moses and the 70, priests/Levites and elders/rulers, Christ and the 70) and I reject the idea that there is an office limited to administering material issues (if you look at Acts 6, the "deacons" are being appointed to rule - not literally "wait tables" which likely is a euphemism - to make sure the widows are treated equitably regardless of ethnicity, and later some of them, like Stephen and Philip, are preaching and teaching)
5. The congregation gave their approval and chose the number of men (v.5) - this justifies a process where the nominations of officers originate from the congregation (elders, as members of a congregation, can also nominate them, but I don't find any support for the practice of some where a session nominates men)
6. The congregation presented their choices to the Apostles who ordained them (v.6) - this justifies the practice of a session/presbytery/synod/general assembly (a) approving of the men chosen, and (b) ordaining them

The Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government does a much more thorough (while also fairly concise) job of showing how presbyterian polity is Biblically justified at each level (there are over 80 footnotes to the proof texts used), although it presents a 4-office view that few hold today (the offices are there, but they are combined into 2 or 3).

Is this why the Free Church insisted at the disruption that the local congergation has a say in who is called to it

Yes, in the sense that it was largely a reaction against patronage (civil government - the local patron - appointing or, in some cases, withholding appointments of, minsters to particular congregations). They were essentially desiring that the Biblical example of Acts 6 be followed in that the power/duty of choosing officers should originate with the congregation - a bottom-up power construct in this area versus a top-down one. In doing so, however, there were clear that they were not abandoning the principle of establishment in WCF 23. As Chalmers put it: "Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle; we quit a vitiated Establishment but would rejoice in returning to a pure one. We are advocates for a national recognition of religion – and we are not voluntaries."