Responding to Messianic613: The Issue: Were First-Century Elders (Zekenim) Congregationally-Elected or Apostolically-Elected?

So I've been enjoying the on-going discussion with Messianic613.  I'll try to separate posts for the different issues being discussed in order to make it easier for anyone to comment.

MESSIANIC 613 WROTE:

Election of Elders and Overseers is a process not known in the NT. In all the instances where Elders and Overseers to be appointed in the NT, they were either appointed directly by the Apostles, or by apostolic delegates who could act in their name and with their authority, like Timothy and Titus. The only election we have is the election of deacons, in Acts ch. VI. But deacons were not in a position of ruling. Authority in the Assembly of Messiah according to the data of the NT is never established by a bottom-up process. It is derived from Messiah in a top-down manner.

Nobody in today's Assembly can claim that he has authority from Messiah in a historical chain of ordination. Today's messianic leaders claim of authority can only be legitimate insofar as it is a claim of biblical and theological scholarship, which, just as any scholarship, is always subject to ongoing debate.

MY REPONSE

Geert, you need to read a book by Elazar and Cohen entitled "The Jewish Polity."  In the chapter covering first-century Judaism, and specifically pg. 130, Elazar describes the political structure of Jewish kehillot (communities).  There were three realms of authority:

(1) the council of zekenim elected from among the ba'alei batim, led by an Archon, and appointing gabbaim (functionaries) such as the gabbayei tzedakah and the soferim;

(2) the bet din appointed by the Nasi or Exilarch.  Also the Talmidei chachamim, the local scholars serving as teachers of Torah and heads of court;

(3) the kohanim, if available, were given honorific status.  The chazzan was usually a kohen.

Also, you should see the extensive bibliography for that chapter to see the authoritative sources from which Elazar and Cohen derive this information.  

Now, if we accept this as true--that the congregational election of elders was customary in first-century Judaism, then we need to examine the Apostolic Writings to see whether Paul diverged from this custom.  And, as a preliminary matter, we should also note that Paul was "zealous for the traditions" and that, in Acts 21, he demonstrated his devotion to the "customs" of Judaism.  

But indeed we read the following:

"Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust," (Acts 14:23) 

"The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you," Titus 1:5

Our first impression of these passages might be that Paul was in favor of Apostolic appointment of elders rather than congregational appointment of elders.  However, there are two reasons that this is not the case.

First, as mentioned, the historical custom was for congregational-appointment of elders and we know that Paul was zealous for these customs.

Second, and more importantly, we should assume that the Apostles were not stupid, that they wanted to create a workable, self-sustaining system of elder succession.  So why not use the system that was already a universal custom in Judaism?

In conclusion, I agree with Elazar and Cohen that the principal householders were responsible for electing a council of elders for their congregation.