motorhead

I disagree this is how it should be interpreted.

First, I doubt the Great Commision verses (Matthew 28:19-20) were spoken by Jesus. It was put on the lips of Jesus by the writer of Matthew. These verses reflect the mission of the church.

Second, it has nothing to do with the time after Jesus returns. The church is to do these things before the return of Jesus. The end of the age is when Jesus will return. In the meantime, the church is go out into the world and make disciples, baptize them and teach them to live the Christian life.

What makes you think these verses have to do with the time after Jesus returns?

TonyN

Paul, who is our apostle of the nations, the very one commissioned by God to bring the evangel of the Uncircumcision to the nations (that's us) did not commission us to be baptising. The disciples are to be baptizing the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.

The Nations are not supposed to make disciples of themselves. Israel is to disciple the Nations.

It was spoken by Jesus but written by Matthew:

Mat 28:17-20 And, perceiving Him, they worship Him, yet they hesitate." (18) And, approaching, Jesus speaks to them saying, "Given to Me was all authority in heaven and on the earth." (19) Going, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, (20) teaching them to be keeping all, whatever I direct you. And lo! I am with you all the days till the conclusion of the eon! Amen!"

If you will notice where the quotes begin and end you will see that it is Christ talking.

TonyN

You can't always get what you want.

Sorry, no free will.

Nope, just another one of those urban legends.

Can't lose what one never had.

We all have wills. They operate in accord with what we are. And at the moment for the last 6,000 years or so our wills are that which is in accord with the flesh

Joh 1:13 who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God."

Eph 2:3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),

And the flesh is at enmity to God:

Rom 8:7 because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able."

There's your will!

Sorry but I won't be around while Israel is doing it on the earth. I'll be among the celestial regions during that time.

Ben C Smith

Hi, Tony.

Why did Paul himself baptize people?

Ben.

Gamera

Curiously, I would ask whether in fact in ever was in full swing. As near as I can tell from the Christian scriptures (not subsequent tradition), the apostles never in fact engaged in a mission to the gentiles. On the contrary, they huddled in Jerusalem.

And for this reason Paul arose (to speak like Paul). The apostles (as usual) failed to follow Jesus' teaching and limited their evangelism to Jews. Paul comes along and goes to the gentiles, causing all kinds of friction with the Jesus movement establishment.

Now, subsequent tradition places Peter in Rome, etc., but I don't think the NT texts themselves support any conclusion but the apostles loitered around Judea and environs. It was Paul and his school that took up the challenge of the great commission, as if by default.

Gamera

Not to butt in, but as a fellow believer like Ben, who has no problem with the Christian scriptures having been adapted to the conditions that the early church found itself in (as opposed to having dropped from heaven), I would point out that acceptance of the gospel is not contingent on accepting all the theological concepts one can (and many have) thought up about the gospel message.

The gospel is at its core a very simple narrative about God expressing his love for us through a story about the death of his son. You don't have to understand or even accept everything discussed in the NT to accept that message. Indeed, since the early church lacked the NT scriptures, none of them were preaching the NT's content. They were preaching a simple narrative that constitutes the gospel. We have it summarized more or less in 1 Cor. 15.

This dovetails back to the great commission. There is no soteriology without the gospel narrative. In a sense it's not Jesus that saves, but the gospel message itself. By the NT's own terms, a secret sacrifice by Jesus wouldn't save anybody because it is not the sacrifice itself that magically saves, but the volitional acceptance of its meaning (i.e., it is an existential choice about what kind of person you want to be). Jesus saves in the sense that he made himself the subject of this little narrative, but it is the narrative itself we must accept.

Paul expesses this radical concept in Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek

TonyN

It was pretty rare that he did and most likely was at the very early part of when he was saved for he wrote:

Paul wrote of himself:
1Co 1:14-17 "I am thanking God that I baptize not one of you except Crispus and Gaius, (15) lest anyone may be saying that you are baptized into my name. (16) Yet I baptize the household of Stephanas also. Furthermore, I am not aware if I baptize any other."
(17) For Christ does not commission me to be baptizing, but to be bringing the evangel, not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ may be made void."

And even then, it was not using the formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit."

In Paul's perfection epistles he states that there is only one baptism now:
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
And that baptism is in spirit, not in water.

Does that answer your question, Ben?

JoyJuice

Thanks for your honesty.

Can I ask you and Ben C. Smith a question. As you have both indicated, if one were to take in consideration those verses attributed to Jesus as being more apt in being statements about current conditions some 40 years removed from Jesus, but yet placed on his lips; like the Great Commission statement. Although roundly poo pooed by Christians, I think folks like the Jesus seminar are on the right track using those colored balls in the attempt to extract the real Jesus. So with that in consideration taking the essence of Jesus teachings, his sayings, do you come away with the idea that Jesus pronouncements were intended for the Gentile?

Ben C Smith

It was Paul that I was referring to when I spoke of the gentile mission being in full swing. It does not seem to have taken very long after the fall of Jerusalem for the worldwide church to become overwhelmingly gentile in composition.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Personally, I doubt the historical Jesus had much to do with the gentiles at all. They may have figured into his overall eschatological view, since they are pictured quite often in the OT prophecies as streaming to Jerusalem paying homage to the God of Israel, but I think he himself was speaking to Jews.

Ben.