Mark's Great Commission

[JonShaff]

I just wanted to throw something out there about "open air preaching..."

Let's look at Acts 17

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

We see people WANTED to hear him speak.

Not to mention, this was a COMMON occurrence in their day...

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

And what was the result?

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
....

34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

 

[asterisktom]

Yeah, I ignore the redneck and others of his odd theological stance and strange aggresiveness.

Oh, really? Look again. The audience for Mark's GC was not "the apostles." That one is Acts 1:8.

A bald assertion bereft of Scriptural backing. Kyredneck already answered this.

So your motive for not obeying Mark's GC is that it might interfere with your non-orthodox full preterism?

I obey it insomuch that I am still a missionary here in China, albeit unofficial. But a clearer mandate for me to witness for Christ is in other passages. Likewise I don't handle snakes or expect God to work outright sign miracles through me.
Your seeing in us not "strange aggresiveness" but a different viewpoint from brothers in Christ. It seems strange to you because you all in the great majority read commentaries that reinforce - not challenge - your pre-inherited views.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your seeing in us not "strange aggresiveness" but a different viewpoint from brothers in Christ. It seems strange to you because you all in the great majority read commentaries that reinforce - not challenge - your pre-inherited views.

Really? Do you know what he reads? Exactly was his pre-inherited view and who gave it to him?

 

[HankD]

A bald assertion bereft of Scriptural backing. Kyredneck already answered this.

I obey it insomuch that I am still a missionary here in China, albeit unofficial. But a clearer mandate for me to witness for Christ is in other passages. Likewise I don't handle snakes or expect God to work outright sign miracles through me.
Your seeing in us not "strange aggresiveness" but a different viewpoint from brothers in Christ. It seems strange to you because you all in the great majority read commentaries that reinforce - not challenge - your pre-inherited views.

Hi Tom,

Full Preterism (FP) is a challenge to the GC because if all has been fulfilled so then has the GC.

FP teachers claim that all scripture has been fulfilled, all prophecy, promises including the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the saints, etc, etc...

Many of us have done an in depth examination and consideration of FP and several FP commentary works and I for one as you know am not convinced of a convincing amount of scriptural support.

The greatest challenge to FP being:

Acts 1
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

IMO a very clear and definitive scripture promising the future bodily return of Jesus Christ Himself.

I know this is probably not the right place to renew a fresh challenge to preterism but I am willing to debate the theory again as it has been a long time with a goodly amount of BB reader turnover since we had our last repertoire of lengthy discussions.

IMO the basic issue is the hermeneutics of the overall assignment and definition of metaphorical, hyperbolic and/or symbolic language of the scripture.

Thanks

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

Hi Tom,

Full Preterism (FP) is a challenge to the GC because if all has been fulfilled so then has the GC.

Two things Hank:

Although the original poster has derailed his own thread by first bringing it up, this thread is not about Preterism.

Can you point to scripture where this command, given to the apostles, is deemed to be the Great Commission? As far as I know it was missionaries 3-4 centuries ago that first coined the term and assigned it to a certain passage.

 

[HankD]

Two things Hank:

Although the original poster has derailed his own thread by first bringing it up, this thread is not about Preterism.

Can you point to scripture where this command, given to the apostles, is deemed to be the Great Commission? As far as I know it was missionaries 3-4 centuries ago that first coined the term and assigned it to a certain passage.

Yes, I acknowledged that the thread is not about preterism except that it has an important relationship as to whether it is something of a by-gone era or should be done by 21st century believers (called missionaries).

So - no, that phrase Great Commission is not there , but I can't find the the term - Trinity - in the scripture either as I have pointed out before and yes I am fully convinced Trinitarian.
As far as I know it was 3-4 centuries that the concept of the Trinity was fully developed at Nicaea (although Origen (185–254) and Tertullian (160–220) did use the word).

There are other concepts which are considered scriptural yet do not appear as a singular phrase in the bible but must be distilled from several passages which is why the advent of the "systematic theology" approach began around the time that the Nicaean Council(s) came forth with the Trinitarian dogma.

Therefore IMO the phrase "Great Commission" is valid terminology to use for the several passages in which Jesus sends forth the apostles and disciples into the world to preach, teach and baptize in the name of the Trinitarian God

If perhaps someone says the GC was given only to the apostles then I would ask "why then do you baptize", especially of those who are Baptists posting here at the BB seeing that baptizing is part of the commands of the GC.

I asked this question of Tom Asterisk (a Full Preterist) and he said (please correct me if I'm wrong Tom) "I have a verse for doing it" (or words to that effect) but he never gave it to me.

To be forthright I believe Tom has a problem with those who are looking over his shoulder to see if and when he quotes divine revelation so I can understand his reluctance. Maybe just the verse reference Tom?

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, I acknowledged that the thread is not about preterism except that it has an important relationship as to whether it is something of a by-gone era or should be done by 21st century believers (called missionaries).

I will only take time for one quick comment. Later on I plan to answer more.

I only want to say that your either/or sentence above is in itself wrong. Just because I do not believe the GC is for us today does not mean I am against missionary activity. We ought all to be missionaries, showing by our changed lives and by communicating the life-giving Word salvation through Christ. None of that has changed.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will only take time for one quick comment. Later on I plan to answer more.

I only want to say that your either/or sentence above is in itself wrong. Just because I do not believe the GC is for us today does not mean I am against missionary activity. We ought all to be missionaries, showing by our changed lives and by communicating the life-giving Word salvation through Christ. None of that has changed.

I understand why you think the Great Commission is not for today. However, in the fuller context of the Great Commission we find a greater audiance than merely the apostles being addressed.

For example, in Matthew 28 the real context begins in verse 7. In verses 7-10 you will see that Jesus informed the women where he would meet with "my brethren" and "disciples" and these descriptions are the same attributed to the 120 in Acts 1:15-17. Moreover, take a look at Acts 1:21-22 where the qualifications to select another apostle are provided. Notice, that the person who could fill that office had to have been assembling with them from the time of John the Baptist until the ascension. Furthermore, notice the context where Christ chose the apostles in Luke 6:13. He chose them "out of" other disciples who were following Christ (as that is the meaning of "disciple" one who follows). Here is the significant thing, even though throughout the book of Luke from Luke 6:13 the emphasis falls upon the twelve most of the time, it does not mean the other disciples were not present as well as that is the only possible explanation for anyone being qualified during that same period of time. Therefore, just because no one is mentioned in most of the gospels but Jesus and the twelve does not mean other disciples are not there and present.

Second, Jesus expressly appeared to all of the apostles prior to leaving Jerusalem and stayed around for at least two weeks to make sure that there were no more doubters among the apostles as Thomas was the last to be convinced. On his way to Galilee to that mountain he went out of the way to make sure that Peter and the aposltes with him did not feel their betrayal excluded them from his love. So all the apostles knew and were assured by Christ before coming to that mountain. All the women, and other brethren knew of that meeting place. In verse Matthew 28:17, Matthew notes that there were some present that "doubted" which infers more were present than merely the twelve just as more were present all along from the beginning of his ministry than just the twelve, although in most cases only the twelve are mentioned OR ELSE none others could meet the time frame and presence demanded to fill the vacated officer in Acts 1:21-22.

Third, the Great Commission was given to more than the apostles on the mount in Galilee, but it had already been given in a "house" in Jerusalem previously according to Mark's account. According to Luke's account the commission in Acts 1:8 occurred on the Mount of Olivet as they were seeing him ascend into heaven. This may be the instance where more than 500 hundred brethren saw him at once (1 Cor. 15:6).

My point is, that it does not prove that only the aposltes were present at the giving of the Great Commission simply because none others are mentioned as that is the usual or norm throughout the gospel accounts and yet we know others were present "ALL THE TIME" Jesus went in and out from among them (Acts 1:21-22). The reason the focus was primarily all the time on the aposltes and not the other disciples is because they were being trained to LEAD the congregation after Jesus left, and they were going to be used to convey "the faith" that was "once delivered" by Christ to them in order to establish the churches in the faith. Moreover, they were going to be used to provide the NT scriptures and scriptures are provided by prophets and they filled that job position when providing scriptuers and prophets and new scriptuers are confimred by signs and wonders (Mk 16:; 2 Cor. 12:12) until the Biblical canon is completed (Isa. 8:16-18 with Heb. 2:5-6, 12-13).

In Revelation 2-3 Jesus still addressees the "angel" (messenger) or Pastor of the church when addressing the church as he did in the Great Commission because they are the ordained leadership he has established in the church and because they do perform the job of MESSENGER boys who are supposed to get their messages from the Lord and in turn deliver it to the church. Finally, it is hard for John to send a letter to an invisible Angel of God (air mail perhaps)!

So the Great Commission was directed to the appointed leadership but to the church at Jerusalem.

The Great Commission is not merely to the end of the Apostolic age as its very processes are what is required to make true disciples and form true NT churches. It provides an orderly process that cannot be limited to the first century. It demands that disciples are defined by those who are followers of Christ in the same gospel, same baptism and same teaching observing assemblies that are committed to reproduce after their own kind till Jesus comes again.

 

[asterisktom]

I must not have been clear in what I wrote. I do not doubt that there were others present even though both Mark's and Matthew's account of the GC explicitly speak of Christ addressing the eleven disciples (Mark 16:14, Matt. 28:16). The best answer, I believe, is that Christ spoke to His immediate disciples, but intentionally in the hearing of others. He did the same in the Sermon on the Mount.

But all this is beside the point. The issue is not the extent of the audience, but the time. All of the hearers were from that generation.

Nearly the same time (from our perspective) were involved in the time of the other passage you cite, Rev. 3. The hearers here were either of the same generation of the Apostles or were of the immediately following one. At any rate they were still before the Parousia, God's judgment on Jerusalem and vindication of His saints.

One last comment below.

I understand why you think the Great Commission is not for today. However, in the fuller context of the Great Commission we find a greater audiance than merely the apostles being addressed.

For example, in Matthew 28 the real context begins in verse 7. In verses 7-10 you will see that Jesus informed the women where he would meet with "my brethren" and "disciples" and these descriptions are the same attributed to the 120 in Acts 1:15-17. Moreover, take a look at Acts 1:21-22 where the qualifications to select another apostle are provided. Notice, that the person who could fill that office had to have been assembling with them from the time of John the Baptist until the ascension. Furthermore, notice the context where Christ chose the apostles in Luke 6:13. He chose them "out of" other disciples who were following Christ (as that is the meaning of "disciple" one who follows). Here is the significant thing, even though throughout the book of Luke from Luke 6:13 the emphasis falls upon the twelve most of the time, it does not mean the other disciples were not present as well as that is the only possible explanation for anyone being qualified during that same period of time. Therefore, just because no one is mentioned in most of the gospels but Jesus and the twelve does not mean other disciples are not there and present.

Second, Jesus expressly appeared to all of the apostles prior to leaving Jerusalem and stayed around for at least two weeks to make sure that there were no more doubters among the apostles as Thomas was the last to be convinced. On his way to Galilee to that mountain he went out of the way to make sure that Peter and the aposltes with him did not feel their betrayal excluded them from his love. So all the apostles knew and were assured by Christ before coming to that mountain. All the women, and other brethren knew of that meeting place. In verse Matthew 28:17, Matthew notes that there were some present that "doubted" which infers more were present than merely the twelve just as more were present all along from the beginning of his ministry than just the twelve, although in most cases only the twelve are mentioned OR ELSE none others could meet the time frame and presence demanded to fill the vacated officer in Acts 1:21-22.

Third, the Great Commission was given to more than the apostles on the mount in Galilee, but it had already been given in a "house" in Jerusalem previously according to Mark's account. According to Luke's account the commission in Acts 1:8 occurred on the Mount of Olivet as they were seeing him ascend into heaven. This may be the instance where more than 500 hundred brethren saw him at once (1 Cor. 15:6).

My point is, that it does not prove that only the aposltes were present at the giving of the Great Commission simply because none others are mentioned as that is the usual or norm throughout the gospel accounts and yet we know others were present "ALL THE TIME" Jesus went in and out from among them (Acts 1:21-22). The reason the focus was primarily all the time on the aposltes and not the other disciples is because they were being trained to LEAD the congregation after Jesus left, and they were going to be used to convey "the faith" that was "once delivered" by Christ to them in order to establish the churches in the faith. Moreover, they were going to be used to provide the NT scriptures and scriptures are provided by prophets and they filled that job position when providing scriptuers and prophets and new scriptuers are confimred by signs and wonders (Mk 16:; 2 Cor. 12:12) until the Biblical canon is completed (Isa. 8:16-18 with Heb. 2:5-6, 12-13).

In Revelation 2-3 Jesus still addressees the "angel" (messenger) or Pastor of the church when addressing the church as he did in the Great Commission because they are the ordained leadership he has established in the church and because they do perform the job of MESSENGER boys who are supposed to get their messages from the Lord and in turn deliver it to the church. Finally, it is hard for John to send a letter to an invisible Angel of God (air mail perhaps)!

So the Great Commission was directed to the appointed leadership but to the church at Jerusalem.

The Great Commission is not merely to the end of the Apostolic age as its very processes are what is required to make true disciples and form true NT churches. It provides an orderly process that cannot be limited to the first century. It demands that disciples are defined by those who are followers of Christ in the same gospel, same baptism and same teaching observing assemblies that are committed to reproduce after their own kind till Jesus comes again.

I would wholeheartedly agree with all of this last paragraph if only the first and last phrases were excised.

 

[HankD]

I will only take time for one quick comment. Later on I plan to answer more.

I only want to say that your either/or sentence above is in itself wrong. Just because I do not believe the GC is for us today does not mean I am against missionary activity. We ought all to be missionaries, showing by our changed lives and by communicating the life-giving Word salvation through Christ. None of that has changed.

Thanks Tom,

I am curious - do you affirm the ordinance of Baptism?

If so - why? Is there any scripture to which you can point to justify this ordinance which seems to have been given only to the apostles. They have come and gone, all is fulfilled in terms of the harvest and the laborers along with their instructions to preach, teach and baptize.

In addition what about the other ordinance of communion? Is it to be taken?
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Since He (according to FP theology) has indeed come then we no longer need to show forth His death and therefore we can dismiss the ordinance as unnecessary unless there is a viable reason to continue the ordinance.

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Really? Do you know what he reads? Exactly was his pre-inherited view and who gave it to him?

Really? How could I not know? John very often quotes his sources - which is not a bad thing in itself.

I am not sure why you are involving yourself here, seeing that you are not adding anything substantive.

 

[Revmitchell]

Really? How could I not know? John very often quotes his sources - which is not a bad thing in itself.

I am not sure why you are involving yourself here, seeing that you are not adding anything substantive.

You involved yourself at the same time adding nothing substantive and uh no you did not make that unknowable assertion because you saw his source quotes. You did so as a broad accusation of everyone in the majority as you put it. Nothing specific about him. Quite the broad brushed accusation which includes a great many regular posters on this board. Quite arrogant as well.

 

[The Biblicist]

I must not have been clear in what I wrote. I do not doubt that there were others present even though both Mark's and Matthew's account of the GC explicitly speak of Christ addressing the eleven disciples (Mark 16:14, Matt. 28:16). The best answer, I believe, is that Christ spoke to His immediate disciples, but intentionally in the hearing of others. He did the same in the Sermon on the Mount.

But all this is beside the point. The issue is not the extent of the audience, but the time. All of the hearers were from that generation.

Nearly the same time (from our perspective) were involved in the time of the other passage you cite, Rev. 3. The hearers here were either of the same generation of the Apostles or were of the immediately following one. At any rate they were still before the Parousia, God's judgment on Jerusalem and vindication of His saints.

One last comment below.



I would wholeheartedly agree with all of this last paragraph if only the first and last phrases were excised.

So it is your eschtalogy that decides your interpretation of the Great Commission rather than its doctrinal and practical contextual implications?

Let me ask you a question is "going" with the gospel to evangelize the nations limited to the apostolic age too as the very same words that govern the rest govern that too - "until the end of the age"?

You do realize there is one primary verb that is modified by three participles here? The verb contains the command WHAT they are to do, while the participles tell them HOW to obey that command. You simply cannot pick and choose. It is either all or none.

My point is that it is given to the Pre-pentecost church as an institution which Christ promised that the gates of hades shall never prevail against, not never prevail against until 70 A.D.!!!

 

[asterisktom]

Thanks Tom,

I am curious - do you affirm the ordinance of Baptism?

If so - why? Is there any scripture to which you can point to justify this ordinance which seems to have been given only to the apostles. They have come and gone, all is fulfilled in terms of the harvest and the laborers along with their instructions to preach, teach and baptize.

In addition what about the other ordinance of communion? Is it to be taken?
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Since He (according to FP theology) has indeed come then we no longer need to show forth His death and therefore we can dismiss the ordinance as unnecessary unless there is a viable reason to continue the ordinance.

HankD

I believe baptism and observing the Lord's Supper are still important. The first identifies us as belonging to the body of Christ. The second is still an important reminder of the tremendous price paid for our salvation.

Concerning the supposed problem of "until": The word (or idea of) "until" is also found in Matt. 28:20. Christ said He will be with us until the end of the age. Putting aside for this discussion what "age" signifies, who among us would say say that Christ and His believers will actually part ways at the end of the age? No, we will be with Him forever.

The problem is merely one of semantics and the limitations of language - especially when focus is brought narrowly down to one word.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe baptism and observing the Lord's Supper are still important. The first identifies us as belonging to the body of Christ. The second is still an important reminder of the tremendous price paid for our salvation.

Concerning the supposed problem of "until": The word (or idea of) "until" is also found in Matt. 28:20. Christ said He will be with us until the end of the age. Putting aside for this discussion what "age" signifies, who among us would say say that Christ and His believers will actually part ways at the end of the age? No, we will be with Him forever.

The problem is merely one of semantics and the limitations of language - especially when focus is brought narrowly down to one word.

Can you show me in the book of Matthew prior to this last verse where the same Greek term translated "world" is used of anything other than this entire age as contrasted to the age to come after the glorification of the saints?

 

[HankD]

I believe baptism and observing the Lord's Supper are still important. The first identifies us as belonging to the body of Christ. The second is still an important reminder of the tremendous price paid for our salvation.

Concerning the supposed problem of "until": The word (or idea of) "until" is also found in Matt. 28:20. Christ said He will be with us until the end of the age. Putting aside for this discussion what "age" signifies, who among us would say say that Christ and His believers will actually part ways at the end of the age? No, we will be with Him forever.

The problem is merely one of semantics and the limitations of language - especially when focus is brought narrowly down to one word.

While I believe your testimony of the importance of the ordinances bro. I am not convinced by your comparative exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:26 and Matthew 28:20. It indeed has merit but the semantic realms are different for these two different words which you mentioned might be an issue.

The Matthew 28:20 word unto-heos, the 1 Corinthians 11:26 passage is until-archi.

According to my lexicon blurbs archi is closer to our English "until" (up to a point in time).

While He will be with us forever we will no longer have to show forth His death after He arrives here on planet earth.

Perhaps others have feedback?

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Can you show me in the book of Matthew prior to this last verse where the same Greek term translated "world" is used of anything other than this entire age as contrasted to the age to come after the glorification of the saints?

Well, you are asking me to prove something I don't believe. I don't divide those two periods the same way you do. Scripture is against it.

"This age" I see as the time of the Jewish dispensation, the last years of that dispensation being the "last days" (Heb. 1:2), and "last hour" (1 John 2:18). These both were written before AD 70.

"The age to come" or, better, the "age about to be" is all the time from when the old dispensation was ended to be replaced by our age, the Christian age.

If you want I would be more than willing to discuss these, but it should be a new thread.

 

[asterisktom]

Can you show me in the book of Matthew prior to this last verse where the same Greek term translated "world" is used of anything other than this entire age as contrasted to the age to come after the glorification of the saints?

Well, you are asking me to prove something I don't believe. I don't divide those two periods the same way you do. Scripture is against it.

"This age" I see as the time of the Jewish dispensation, the last years of that dispensation being the "last days" (Heb. 1:2), and "last hour" (1 John 2:18). These both were written before AD 70.

"The age to come" or, better, the "age about to be" is all the time from when the old dispensation was ended to be replaced by our age, the Christian age.

If you want I would be more than willing to discuss these, but it should be a new thread.

 

[asterisktom]

So it is your eschtalogy that decides your interpretation of the Great Commission rather than its doctrinal and practical contextual implications?

My eschatology determines nothing. I know there are some here who are unconvinced of that but that is their business. I am telling the truth. My eschatology - what is left of it (most has been converted into Christology) - is the caboose. The engine is my just reading the Bible and studying out connections - specifically OT and NT connections. Other cars (-ologies and -isms) trail along behind this study of the Bible.

Sorry for the double post earlier. Internet is getting to be really slow. I do want to answer more of your post - and Hank's also. I appreciate the study you put into your comments and want to give them the answer they deserve.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, you are asking me to prove something I don't believe. I don't divide those two periods the same way you do. Scripture is against it.

"This age" I see as the time of the Jewish dispensation, the last years of that dispensation being the "last days" (Heb. 1:2), and "last hour" (1 John 2:18). These both were written before AD 70.

"The age to come" or, better, the "age about to be" is all the time from when the old dispensation was ended to be replaced by our age, the Christian age.

If you want I would be more than willing to discuss these, but it should be a new thread.

You are avoiding my question. I asked you if you can sustain your interpertation of the Greek term aionos in Matthew 28:20 by Matthew's own use of it anywhere else in his gospel and he does in fact use it prior to this point (Mt. 12:32; 13:22; 39, 40; 24:3). Please answer the question.

Also, you completely avoided the grammatical difficulties I presented for your interpretation of aionos in Matthew 28:20. You can't pick and choose what will and will not continue to the "end of the age." The command to "make disciples" is defined by three participles and all three are confined within that time frame not just one.