Matthew 28:16 - 20 Have we been wrong?

BriGuy,

bmerr here. So far, I'd say the conversation has been pretty civil over all. Would that were the case on every thread! In reading over this topic, I think I might have somewhat to add.

One of the original questions posed was, in effect, "Why do so few believers immerse others in water?" That is something I wondered myself. The conclusion I have come to is (and i mean no offense) that some of the traditions of the RCC have carried over into most religious bodies today.

Here's what I mean. The RCC has it's "clerical hierarchy" of pope, bishops, cardinals, priests, etc. I think they got the idea from the Levitical priesthood, but I could be wrong. In any case, the idea of a "clergy"/"laity" distinction is completely foreign to the New Testament.

yeshua4me made a point of 1 Cor 1:17, where Paul said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel...", the contention being that since Christ did not send Pual to baptize, then it must not be all that important.

While admitting that Paul's main mission was not to baptize, we also must recognize that Paul did baptize some. Was he being disobedient? Of course not! He himself said that he "...was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19).

So how can these facts be reconciled? By coming to the understanding that all Christians have the authority to baptize. For instance, Paul did not need to baptize everyone who received his message. He may have baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, and then they could have taken over the baptismal duties, with others doing the same.

This also helps to account for 3000 being baptized in Acts 2. Someone has done the educated guessing on this, but for the 12 apostles to have baptized each one of the 3000, they would not have had time to finish in one day (2:41).

However, if each new convert turned and baptized another believer into Christ, the time factor goes away.

In closing (at least on this point), I too used to have a hard time understanding why only the "pastor" was allowed to perform the rite of baptism, especially if it was not essential.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

BriGuy,

bmerr here. Next point.

You presented the idea that Peter's message in Acts 2 was only for the Jews. I'm pretty sure I've addressed this before, but since you brought it up again...

Up front, I will admit that Peter's audience was primarily a Jewish one. It was Pentecost in Jerusalem, after all - who would we expect to be in the majority?

But there are a couple of groups oft overlooked in the roster given in vv. 9-11 of Acts 2. In 2:10 we have "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes". For one to be listed as a "stranger" among a Jewish crowd indicates his non-Jewish, or Gentile status.

The "stranger" was a reference to Gentiles in numerous OT passages (ie. Ex 12:43, etc). The inclusion of this term in Acts 2:10 would make little sense if it did not refer to Gentiles, especially since it is placed in such close proximity to "Jews".

Also, the "proselyte" was simply a Gentile who had brought himself under the Mosaic Law. It didn't change who he was, just how he worshipped God.

If we skip to the end of Peter's message, we find that the promise was to go, not to only the Jews, but to "...them that are afar off..." This is also a reference to the Gentiles.

Eph 2:11 contains the subject, "Gentiles", and is referred back to with terms such as, "Uncircumcision" (2:11), "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" (2:12), "strangers from the covenants of promise" (2:12), and "ye who were sometimes afar off" (2:13).

In 2:17, there is a distinction made between "you which were afar off" (Gentiles), and "them that were nigh" (Jews).

BriGuy, I understand how important it is to hold this idea in light of your position on the neccessity of baptism (which we need not get into here), but since the ressurrection of Christ, there has always and only been one gospel for all nations in all the world. One gospel for Jews and Gentiles.

Acts 2 applies to you.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

BriGuy,

bmerr here. Next point.

The textual criticism concerning the last 12 verses in Mark is one that is quite easily refuted. For the record, I do not think that you, personally have any doubt as to the legitimacy of these verses.

Anyway, here's a simple way to determine if those verses ought to be there or not.

Mark 1:1 reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

"Gospel" means "good news", as I'm sure we all know. Now, let's apply "good news" to the two alleged endings of the book of Mark.

The short version would end like this,

16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

The long version ends this way:

16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Now honestly, which one sounds like "good news"???

Hope it helps.

In Christ,

bmerr