[OBW]

YP,

I understand your points. And they warrant consideration.

First, to get this Antioch thing out of the way, virtually all of the maps of Paul’s first missionary journey show an Antioch which was at a certain place in Galatia. It was identified in the verses you mentioned as being a string of places that he went back through on the way home. Since he would not have jumped over to Syria then back to Galatia, the city in that region is almost certainly the one being mentioned as it falls in order. All mentions of Antioch prior to that journey were of the one in Syria. If those in Jerusalem were writing to the place that Paul treated as his home base, then it was the city in Syria. It’s not really so muddy.

But back to the actual topic concerning elders, it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God. You have now even questioned the appointing of the deacons as indicating a flaw in the apostles' character. (I presume that you actually wash other’s feet, feed widows and orphans, etc. Or do you pay another to do it, such as an organization that feeds the hungry in Africa.) When the world observes the actions of the church in this day, do you think that the fact that not every person is involved in every ministry diminishes their care for those ministries or the testimony of the church? And if an organization is actually feeding the hungry (whether widows and orphans or just the homeless on the streets of your city) are persons who help organize and see that it actually happens considered of lesser importance or connection to the activity because they are not the ones who might actually be standing in the soup kitchen with a ladle?

Did Luke suggest a negative thing when he recorded that the apostles and elders sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? It would seem that these men (the apostles and elders who were the ones sending the letter) wrote to the whole of the believers. How does that demean the elders in any location or deny them their “position.” It would seem that when they called themselves “brothers” and then wrote to everyone that they were admitting to the perceived authority they might or might not actually hold, but that they considered themselves brothers and that they were writing to all the believers and not just some similarly situated authorities.

I cannot find the flaw in the NT record that you seem to see. I see plenty of flaw in what flawed humans have done with the NT on many subjects, not the least of which has been leadership. But in any group, there will be leadership. Even in an informal gathering of people, there eventually begins to be one or two that will stand out as the one(s) that the others follow. The one(s) that suggest the next time they are going to get together. You can buck it if you want. But the result will either be discord or you will become a/the leader. And in a spiritual context, the natural leader may not be the best choice. Having some guidelines for the willful selection of leaders is quite helpful if something more that a type A personality is required.

It would appear that God stopped Paul from participating in that purification vow. But he did not stop him from setting up elders. And those 7 letters at the beginning of Revelation would have been a good time to mention the eldership thing. Not a word. But the next chapter has 24 elders sitting on 24 thrones with 24 golden crowns. Now this does not indicate that these were “elders” of churches or “elders” of the Jewish tradition. It just says they are there.

And yes, why did Jesus select 12 for his inner circle? But I think it is recorded that he sent out 70 at one point. So there were the 12, plus another 58, plus how many others who followed regularly? Do we just say it was what happened? Did it have meaning as it was done to those whom he called, selected and sent? Did this tie into Jewish practice? Would this be meaningful to those very Jewish men? Would Jesus have expected them to practice just as he did? Or do we presume that it just happened and those same 12 (well, 11) made something out of it that was not?

It seems to me that you are trying to find the error captured in scripture so that we can have a clear scriptural basis for dealing with it. I think the basis already exists. The leader is a servant. The first shall be last. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. When you find "leaders" outside of these and other principles, then they are not spiritual leaders.