QC,
Thank you for your post. Although it's not my job to defend the notion of a GB as it exists today, I have to point out several serious weaknesses of your reasoning. Please bare with me.
1st argument - Paul's conversion came via Ananias, not via a Governing Body. You fail to mention that Paul's conversion and appointment as apostle came directly from Jesus Christ, not Ananias. Ananias was an incidental instrument in Paul's conversion, since this took place near Damascus and Ananias was a disciple from the congregation in Damascus. Therefore, no intervention from any body of Apostles was necessary for an appointment that came directly from above.
2nd argument - When Paul came to Jerusalem, he only met the apostles Peter and James (Galatians 1:18, 19) I don’t know what is this supposed to prove. Remember that, following the slaying of Stephen, “a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” (Acts 1:8) The activity of the congregation in Jerusalem went underground. Given the reputation of Paul, the members of the “apostles and older men in Jerusalem” were understandably reluctant to meet with Paul. It’s actually interesting that he only met with Peter and James, whom the Bible depicts as taking the leadership among the group, with James acting as president (Acts 15:6-21)
3rd argument - Paul reproved Peter’s double-faced behavior. (Galatians 2:11-14) How does this prove that there wasn’t a governing body type of structure? As far as apostolic authority went, Paul was as much an apostle as Peter was. (Galatians 1:1, 11) He certainly was in a position to correct Peter for his estrangement towards gentile christians. Even Peter being a member of the group of the “apostles and older men” in Jerusalem, he wasn’t above being corrected by any other brother, regardless of its rank.
4th argument - “ It was apostles, elders and pillars from Antioch and Judea that assembled ONCE in Jerusalem in order to resolve the circumcision dispute” . You’re blatantly distorting the Scriptures here. In Acts 15:2, 3 we read that “ Paul and Barnabas were appointed, [by whom? by the congregation in Antioch] along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way ...” You appear oblivious to the obvious fact that if the church of Antioch had enough authority to make a doctrinal decision on their own, they would have settled the matter locally and then send Paul and Barnabas to inform the other congregations of their decision. Why would they travel to Jerusalem to decide there what could be decided in Antioch, if they had enough doctrinal authority? But that wasn’t the procedure. They appointed Paul and Barnabas to take this matter to be considered by “the apostles and older men in Jerusalem”. You will also notice that during the hearing, Paul and Barnabas acted as witnesses, presenting a report to the elders and apostles (Acts 1:4, 12) but the actual theological discussion of the matter took place among the “apostles and older men” (Acts 1:6) Among them, Peter and James presented the strongest arguments. Paul and Barnabas took no part in this discussion, and there’s no evidence that the “believers” who travelled with them - I don’t know based on what you call them “pillars from Antioch” - took any part on the theological discussion.
5th Argument - Ephesus was an autonomous ecclesia. Really? What scriptural evidence you have of that? Do you ever see them taking doctrinal decisions that set them apart from the other congregations? The fact that notable christians such as Luke, Timothy, the apostle John, served in this congregation doesn’t make it an “autonomous” congregation. Ephesus was a very prominent city and attracted many people to live there and the congregation had amongst its members some distinguished christians of the first century. This by no means constitute evidence that it was “autonomous”. Actually, the decree of the “apostles and older men in Jerusalem” of Acts 15:23-29 was sent out to all congregations, including the one in Ephesus: “As they [Paul and Barnabas] traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.” Ephesus was one of the congregations visited by Paul in this second missionary trip (Acts 18:1), and certainly one where this decree from the “apostles and Elders in Jerusalem” was delivered for observance. They certainly weren’t an “autonomous” church.
6th Argument - Antioch was an autonomous ecclesia where key events took place. Again, the same arguments used for Ephesus apply here. You’re right, many key events described in the Bible took place in Antioch, and a lot had to do with Paul making it his “base of operations”. Notably it was there that “by divine providence” the disciples were first called “christians” Why there and not Jerusalem? Could it be that the “apostles and older men” were gathered there in Antioch? Earthly Jerusalem as a geographic location relevant for christianity is merely circumstancial; The group of “apostles and older men” could gather in council in any other place deemed convenient.
7th argument - Many christian epistoles and books were written outside Jerusalem and not under the supervision of the ‘governing body’. That’s correct. Jesus could direct any given member of his people through the Holy Spirit and activate such person to write inspired teaching to the benefit of the brethren. However, this capability doesn’t constitute evidence that a central “body of apostles and elders” with recognized authority on doctrinal matters didn’t ever exist. It did exist for a considerable while, and it was recognized as such by the christian congregations and its authority was accepted. However, Christ used other means beyond this body of christians to spiritually nourish the congregations.
Now I will also give you something to think about, that you conveniently fully ignore in your post.
Please read Acts 21:17-20. These events take place in 58 CE. Paul comes to Jerusalem after concluding his third missionary trip. “When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard this, they praised God ...”
Can you see the similarities with Acts 15? Paul and his companions present a report to the elders in Jerusalem. Who is presiding over them? Again, James is. The person who presents a report to someone is in subjection to the one receiving the report. Again, by 58 CE, this group of men in Jerusalem were Christ’s appointed leadership of the christian congregation and were recognized as such by the congregations and individual apostles like Paul.
This is also evident when they go on and give Paul some instructions: “ do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple ...” (Acts 21:23-26) Notice that these men gave Paul an order and he complied with it, even perhaps against his better judgement, for he had preached before so strongly about keeping christianity free from judaic traditions.
What does this all tell us?
Indeed there was for a while a governing body type of collective leadership of the christian congregation, centered in Jerusalem, composed of the apostles and other elders of the local congregation, whose theological authority was recognized by all christian congregations of its time. There’s no way around this wheter you personally like it or not. To deny this evidence is to distort the truth, and you have done it with your post, either intentionally or otherwise.
However, the important questions we should be asking are these:
- Why the temporary existence of a governing body leadership in Jerusalem constitutes the definitive sole model for today’s theocratic organization? Why does it have to be like that?
- Does the current GB of the Jehovah's Witnesses reflect in precise terms the original 'governing body' as it were? If it doesn't, why bother to invoke it as a source of "biblical authority" and "precedent"? For example, the original 'governing body' was centered around the apostles. Are there any men among the Jehovah's Witnesses today that have a similar authority to that of the apostles, in the sense of receiving the authority directly from Jesus in an unquestionable, miraculous fashion? No? Then why have a Governing Body today?
- After the christians fled Jerusalem in 66 CE there wasn’t a governing body serving in Jerusalem anymore, and no other mention of it is made again in the Scriptures. What does this tell us?
- Obviously, Jesus wasn’t funelling every teaching through the “governing body” in Jerusalem. Paul was never a member of such governing body and yet he wrote apostolic letters that are accepted as doctrinal authority within the christian congregation; Luke produced his Gospel and Acts away from the supervision of the Governing Body in Jerusalem; There wasn’t any “Governing Body” when John wrote his Gospel, nor his letters, and not “Revelation” where direct messages to seven congregations are given. Peter also produced his letters away from Jerusalem and not in tandem with the other apostles. What does this tell us?
To try to fight the authority of today's Governing Body by attempting to refute the existence of a Governing Body in the first century is a mistake. Any successful opposition to the Governing Body of today must come to objection to its current actions and its spurious teachings and flawed compliance with the Holy Spirit.
Eden
