by awildflower 10 Replies latest jw friends
The other day in conversation with her husband, she was bringing out how Jesus didn't start a congregation. He said that the fact that Jesus choice 12 apostles to 'take the lead' and look out after the sheep, is proof that the current elder arrangement is biblical. She didn't know how to answer him and would like your opinions or research on the topic.
So the question is: Are Jesus 12 Apostles proof of an elder arrangement?
I will thank you from her in advance!.........wf
the WT themself deny this in their theology. Check out the Reasoning book under Apostolic Succession. The WT claims this is not a Bible teaching. Since the WT denies the aposltes had successors, their authority died with them.
The word apostle means "sent one". The common english equivalent would be like we say "missionary". He was training to send them out to preach the Good News, just as Jesus was sent out. If you read in the Bible the selection of the twelve precedes Jesus sending them out to various villages of Israel. As the book of Acts opens you have the 12 together in Jerusalem, but after that we lose sight of them. In his letters Paul claims to have only met Peter and John. Now there are various traditions that place different apostles in different areas. Most of these are rather fanciful but some are more solid, such as the tradition of Thomas preaching in India. The 12 did not stay in Jerusalem as a central governing body or leadership. Again if you read Paul's letters (and Acts) you have Paul acting quite independantly as a traveling missionary. He was commissioned directly by Jesus and was sent out as a missionary from the congregation of Antioch.
Practically all church leadership systems or hierarchies derive their authority from the "apostolic institution" in one way or another. In Catholic and Eastern churches it is through full-fledged "apostolic succession," i.e. a (historical or legendary) line of living successors (bishops). In Protestantism (including JWs) apostolic succession in that sense is denied but it actually functions through the mediation of the book and its interpretation: the NT is vested with "apostolic authority" and modern church authority derives from its alleged conformity with the NT model, or any traditional system of authority is validated provided the church teaching conforms to the NT model (as interpreted by the Protestant doctors). You can also have neo-apostolic systems where leaders are individually validated in an apostolic role because they conform to the NT "apostolic profile" (through special charisms for instance). The current WT system mixes a bit of the latter two (cf. the increasing parallelism between "the apostles" and "the Governing body" in recent literature: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/178130/2/Is-the-governing-body-now-saying-they-are-APOSTLES).
I personally tend to believe that the "apostolic institution" in the Gospels was first set to justify the existing authority system(s) in the early church and connect it with "Jesus," and that worked mostly after the pattern of live "apostolic succession" (as is already apparent in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pastoral epistles, with the theme of "laying on of hands" for instance, or statements of person-to-person and generation-to-generation transmission like 2 Timothy 2:2: "what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well").
Hi WF,
I agree elders are biblical.
However, the real question is are the JW elders actually elders at all? Are they watching over God's flock or their own? Are they shepherds of the church or God or some other?
28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
I conclude they are men who arose from among us a little over a century ago (Charles Taze Russell) and continue to distort the truth and draw disciples away after them.
All the best,
Stephen
Dear WF,
Ray Franz in his book "In search of Christian Freedom" has much to say on this,I respectfully suggest you read his thoughts,around pages 680 to 694 or 5 from memory.
he also quotes respected scholars who show that no corporate structure,or organization ,existed in the 1st centuary, so todays Elder set-up in the WT has no mandate from the pattern set by early christians.
Love
Wobble
Thanks guys for your thoughts, I'm sure my friend appreciates it, she reads the board but isn't signed up. Yes Wobble, come to think of it I typed up that section in Ray's book for her a while ago. So I'm sure when she reads this it will remind her to take a look at that again. Very helpful.......wf
I think that Jesus is the super viewer of everything, in congregations have be the elder ones, they have autonomous directive and not need GB, in Apocalys Jesus do write to Giovanni singly congregations not collectively , JESU not send letters to the GB, if this existed he had to do this and through to give instructions. but Jesus directly give instructions to church ...(church of people). all Christians in a place and that are managed by Jesus and Angels and not GB
Once Jesus was gone, the Apostles acted individualy, not as a group.
They acted so individually that most of them were never heard of again in the NT (although non-canonical literature, both "orthodox" and "heretical," claims a connection with some of them)... moreover the lists of their names do not exactly agree, while they strangely overlap with other groups (the Seven, the Seventy[-two], the "Brothers of the Lord"). And the major role went to an outsider (Paul), whose theology seems to have indirectly influenced the sayings (in Acts) and the writings ascribed to the foremost of them (Peter).
In short, the "apostolic foundation" seems like a can of worms...
