12 apostles and The Great Commission

The Great Commission applied especially to them. What makes you think they stayed in Jerusalem? James was martyred in Jerusalem fairly early. Judas Iscariot committed suicide in Jerusalem and never heard the Great Commission. We know John got as far west as Patmos. Peter got as far west as Rome (if you believe "Babylon" was a code word for Rome); otherwise he got as far east as the Euphrates River. The Bible gives us no clue what happened to the others but according to tradition they were all martyred in divers places like Ethiopia, Syria, Persia, Asia Minor, Greece and Rome.

 

Before one can answer you question we need to know where you get the idea that the 12 apostles were as you say "cooling thier heels in Jerusalem years after His ascension"? Because, that certainly isn't the idea that I get from reading the scripture.

 

does that in any way mean that they were not using Jerusalem as a home base? Don't missionaries do that today?

 

Personally, I believe the apostles should have left Jerusalem before they did. But I can't prove it. Maybe some of them stayed there for a few years to make sure the Jerusalem church was well established.

At any rate, they did all eventually make it out to a foreign mission field except for James of course. A great book on the historical data is The Search for the Twelve Apostles, by William Steuart McBirnie.

 

I see no evidence in the Bible to suggest that "the Gospel" preached by Peter and John in Acts 8:25 in the villages of the Samaritans is any different from "the Gospel" as preached by Paul and Barnabas in 14:7). The Greek is exactly the same, and there is nothing between Acts 8 and 14 to show the Gospel had changed.

Again, there is nothing in this passage to suggest that Paul thought his Gospel was any different from that of any other apostle.

 

Wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the book of Acts to show that "the Gospel" changed between Acts 8 and 14. I dare you to find me a verse in those chapters that says the Gospel changed.

The Gospel is just as clear in the four Gospels as it is in Paul's writings. Compare Luke to Paul:

Luke 24:

1 Cor. 15:

So what Jesus told the apostles to proclaim was exactly what Paul proclaimed, just worded a little differently.

Of course Paul got his Gospel directly from the Lord. But you cannot prove that Paul's Gospel was different than Peter's. That's just not in the Bible. That comes from the imaginings of the like of Darby--not from good theology.

 

Some years back (late 90's?), I came across a gentleman by the name of Enyart, who wrote a publication he called "The Plot of the Bible"; in this work, he espoused the idea that this very verse (Galatians 2:7) indicated a separation of biblical scriptures--one set meant for Jews, one for the Gentiles.

The problem with this thought process is that, as John of Japan points out, there's not a separate gospel for the Jews or the Greeks. This is easily disproved by looking at the same verse that's repeated through several different letters:
Romans 10:12
1 Corinthians 12:13
Galatians 3:28
Colossians 3:11

Whosoever believes may have salvation. That is the gospel from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and preached by Paul, Peter, John, and the rest throughout the rest of the New Testament.

 

Very good point with the verse comparison. :thumbsup:

 

Okay, I'm not sure, but I think you're saying: the message now does not include repent. Is that the point of what you're trying to say here?

I would point out that you seem to be mis-using 1 Cor 15:1-4.
1) The entire letter to the church at Corinth (chapters 1-16) is a list of things they're doing incorrectly (chapter 5, for example, regards someone in the church committing fornication; chapter 14 talks about improper use of the gift of tongues and an orderly church service; etc.)
2) Chapter 15 addresses one particular topic: Some in the Corinthian church were saying that Christ did not rise again. The point of this chapter, especially the set-up laid out in verses 1-11 is about that fact, not a lack of repentence.

 

I would say there is only one gospel that was preached. It began by Jesus himself. He himself taught the disciples. He himself taught Paul. He did not teach Paul anything he didn't the others except that Jew and Gentile are all inclusive to God in God's due time. And even in that concept it meant the Gentiles through Christ are made neigh to the covenants of promise.

which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];

Who does it concern? What is man? I will add it will be a remade man.

 

Billy, may I make a suggestion? You don't appear to have researched this very well. A good concordance (I recommend Young's) or a good Bible software package would help you in this area. Check out this free Bible software: www.e-sword.net.

A simple search with Bible software reveals that Paul explicitly told the Ephesian elders that his message to both Jews and Gentiles included repentance (Acts (Acts 20:21), and he said to Agrippa that his message to both Jew and Gentile included repentance (Acts 26:20). Furthermore, Paul wrote in his epistles tying repentance to salvation (Rom. 2:4, 2 Cor. 7:10).

Again, Peter did not excise repentance from his Gospel through some influence of Paul. He wrote about repentance to escape destruction (2 Pet. 3:9), and this was no doubt long after he knew Paul's Gospel. Peter is said to have written this epistle shortly before his death in 68 AD.

Paul does not say in Rom. 16:25 that his Gospel was any different from that of Peter or the other apostles. He doesn't say that he had some mystery not revealed to anyone else.

Paul's point was that the mystery is now revealed, and he doesn't say that he himself was the only one to whom it was revealed. If Paul had meant to say that his mystery was special, he would have said it at the beginning of his wonderful treatise to the Romans on salvation, not the end.

So again I say that the Bible tells no difference in the Gospel between Peter's Gospel in Acts 8 and Paul's in Acts 14. You didn't take up my challenge, so I assume you can't prove me wrong when I say that the Gospel did not change between Peter's presentation in Acts 8 and Paul's in Acts 14.

 

I would say it's the other way around, that is, repentance most certainly is part of Paul's gospel, and to say that we should not confess our sins is (to use your words) "open denial of Scripture."

Preaching at the Areopogus in Athens, Paul said in Acts 17.30, "God commands all men everywhere to repent." In Acts 20.21, in the course of his report to the elders of the church at Ephesus, he makes mention of how he has testified to both Jews and Greeks "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ". Later, in Acts 26.19, he tells King Agrippa the same thing, that he had declared first to Jews, then to gentiles, that they should repent.

Regarding the confession of sins, 1 John 1.9, written to Christians, says: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

But maybe I have misunderstood what you wrote.

 

Here's the problem I see with what you're saying, and how you're using John 4:22 to support it: In John 4:22, Jesus is talking to a non-Jew. Later, in the same chapter (verse 39), many non-Jews believed on Him based on what the first non-Jew told them; and many more later believed on Him when they saw and heard Him (verse 41).

If we follow what you're saying, then a lot of non-Jews started following the law for their salvation...but scripture doesn't actually seem to say that. It says they believed on Him.

Looks to me like salvation for more than just the Jews started well before Paul.