Featured The Second Coming...

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mt 16

This is not the Church that was given this authority, it was the apostles. Do you believe you have the authority to do as Paul in 1 Cor 5:5 (actually I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you do)?

I read perfectly well, this is only what your predilections lead you to lop-sidedly over emphasize. He left to heaven and from heaven He will return. In no way does this annul the import of the time indicators we've been given of Him coming into His kingdom.

This doesn't even make sense. Of course I can. He plainly said the tribes of the land would see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory within the time frame of 'that generation'.

Wow, with all that spew-nasty you'd think that I had denied the deity of Christ, when actually all I'm doing is defending the word of Christ and the apostles and the prophets concerning His imminent return within the time indicators they gave.

3....`Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?`
34 Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass. Mt 24

And that's the only thing that your predilections are leading you to see.

 

Your scope of "this generation" does not fit the context. It is too narrow. This has been pointed out to you before. Look at the wider context.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.[/FONT]

In the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible Genesis was first, and Abel is considered a prophet, the first prophet. But Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Bible and Zecharias is mentioned last in 2Chron.24:20,21. From the very first prophet to the very last prophet. All these things will come upon this generation (the Jews). But it doesn't say when.

 

Again, your interpretations are flawed. The keys was not given to the Apostles, except as representatives of the congregation.

1. The plural pronoun "you" in Matthew 18:18 has for its nearest antecedent "church" which is inclusive of a plurality of persons (Mt. 18:17).

2. In many epistles addressed to a specific "church" (1 Thes. 1:1) they are then addressed as a plural pronoun "you" (1 Thes. 1:2).

3. I Corinthians 5:4-5 is not apostolic discipline but only apostolic directions to the church to carry out discipline:

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

4. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 makes it clear it is not the apostle administering discipline but the church at Corinth:

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

5. There is no "we" or "I" in the administration of discipline in this passage but an apostolic command for the church to administer the key of discipline. He is not purging out this leaven, but commanding them to purge him out:

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

All the imperative verbs are SECOND PERSON PLURAL not first person singular ("I") or plural ("we") as you theory would demand. Hence, Paul is not administering any action or participating in any action (other in spirit) but directing the church, and church alone to take this action to administer the authority given the church by Christ (Mt. 18:15-18) over that member.

He is not purging anyone out of the church. He is merely instructing the church to administer discipline. Furthermore, he does not say "we" are to purge such out. He merely tells them that he would be with them there in "spirit" (v. 5) as THEY PURGE THIS MEMBER OUT of the congregation.

The keys are first given to Peter in Matthew 16:19 but only as a characteristic representative of the material that Jesus builds his church out of "a stone"! There is a building context in Matthew 16:18.

1. There is a builder - "I"
2. There is something to build upon "upon this rock"
3. There is something to build - "my church"
4. There is something to build with "thou art a stone"

Peter makes this crystal clear in 1 Peter 2:5 that each believer is metaphorically "livel stones built up a spiritual house" and that only Christ is the "petra" (1 Pet. 2:8).

Jesus makes this clear that it is the congregation that exercises the keys of the kingdom by the plural "you" as the immediate and direct nearest antecedent is "the church" in Matthew 18:17-18.

Jesus makes it clear that no smaller class of members can do this, such as the apostles, elders or deacons (Mt. 18:16) but the final authority in administration of the keys (metaphor for ecclessiatical authority) is "the church" (Mt. 18:17-18).

Now, I don't expect you to agree with the evidence provided or any other evidence provided against your false teachings as your mind is not inclined to truth but only to defend your error by whatever rationale and means you can muster up.

 

What did Paul do? He wrote an epistle. He gave them advice. He didn't do anything, at least not anything that you are thinking about.

[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.[/FONT]

"as though" is a simile. He wasn't there. He was writing as though he could be there but he couldn't. The best he could do is give them advice, though it was very strong advice as is the advice given in every chapter of this corrective epistle.

"When you are gathered together." The you is the local church at Corinth. Paul couldn't discipline this man, only the local church could. Neither could the so-called universal Church. It doesn't exist and even if it did it has no function. The members of the church at Corinth were to come together (as he says), and take action (excommunicate him), to deliver him unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh--not of the spirit.

 

Then you hold to apostolic succession, right? This is a Landmarkist belief, right? Considering the conceit you show with your judgmental insults and accusations you must believe that you have the authority to make such severe judgments and accusations.

……we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children: 1 Th 2:6-7

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Jn 20:23

For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing, 1 Cor 5:3

of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim 1:20

You make my case. Paul is exercising apostolic authority in judging this man and directing the church to exclude him. This was foundational (Rev 21:14) to the infant church; he set a precedent for the church to carry out discipline. Paul, as an apostle, had authority to give direction to the church, not the other way around.

You got scripture that defines ‘the keys’ as ‘ecclessiatical authority’? You’re right, I disagree with that. The apostles were given ‘the keys’, they had authority over the church, not the other way around. Their counsels and judgments were foundational to the infant church.

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mt 16

28 But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations;
29 and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me,
30 that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Lu 22

10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
11 having the glory of God: her light was like unto a stone most precious, as it were a jasper stone, clear as crystal:
12 having a wall great and high; having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 on the east were three gates; and on the north three gates; and on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev 20

 

No, and No! No I do not believe in "Apostolic Succession" as that is the Roman Catholic papal doctrine.

No, Landmark Baptists do not believe in Apostolic" succession but in "church" succession - meaning the Great Commission is a command given to the institutional church to reproduce after its own kind until Jesus returns.

No one denies apostolic power (2 Cor. 12:12). However, the keys of the kingdom were never given to that office per se but to the church as "the church" is the FINAL AUTHORITY in such matters according to Christ in Matthew 18:17. He did not say "tell it to the apostles" or "elders" did he? However, that is what you flawed interpretations demand.

That is the consequence of the Great Commission to "preach repentance" and forgiveness of sins - Lk. 24:48 - not any power given to any office - you are now teaching papal nonsense.

Certainly Paul "judged him' to be guilty but it was not Paul who exercised church discipline upon him, but rather commanded the church to do that. Again, none of the imperative mode verbs are first person singular or plural AS YOUR THEORY WOULD DEMAND.

This was in the congregation at Ephesus which was founded and first pastored by Paul. Timothy had now taken charge. Nothing more than Paul's pastoral leadership when he had been there to do exactly what Paul directed the Corinthian elders to lead their church to do. Notice Paul did not use this language for the man in 1 Corinthians 5.

Here it is a SINGULAR person - Peter "thou" and I have already provided the context for why it is Peter. I refer our readers to my former post. This passage refers to the church in context. However, Luke 22 refers to the kingdom not the church and the FUTURE kingdom which you deny will come on earth. This has to do with ruling over Israel in the millennial age, while the former has to do with the here and now church age. Again, little details that expose your flawed interpretations.

Note it is "a" kingdom which is future not yet realized ("shall" sit - future tense), rather than the present spiritual kingdom. Again, they represent the church ruling over Israel in the kingdom to come.

The twelve tribes and twelve apostles represent two different covenant administrations of the House of God and all who were saved under those administrations. Hence, again both "twelve tribes" and "twelve apostles" are represenative terms for the elect.

 

You might as well hold to apostolic succession; by disregarding the immense significance of audience relevance you misapply authority to the Church that belonged only to the apostles.

Where is that term ‘Great Commission’ found in the Bible, and where is it given to the Church?

12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works. 2 Cor 12

Yea, those ‘signs’ verified the authority they had received.

Where exactly are the ‘keys to the kingdom of heaven’ even mentioned in Mt 18? I can’t seem to find it in the context.

Verse 17, ‘tell it to the church’, is exactly what Paul is doing in 1 Cor 5:3-5. But it’s Paul, the apostle with the authority to do so, who has made the judgment to cut the offending member off from the body and ‘takes it to the church’. This was a very ‘great commission’ given to the apostles as the foundation stones of the fledgling church, to ‘gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling’ and to ‘sever the wicked from among the righteous’. They were endowed with the ability and the authority to do these things:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:
23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Jn 20

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Jn 16

18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mt 18

You have a ‘papal tumor’ on the brain, there’s a Catholic hiding behind every bush with you.

The apostles were given authority that you and I and others don’t have. And that has nothing to do with Catholics.

Yes, Paul had the authority to command the church to do so. As an apostle he was setting the precedent for the church to follow down through the ages.

There’s no theory, as an apostle with the authority, Paul made the call.

I don’t even know what your point is here. Once again:

19 holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith:
20 of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim 1

As an apostle with authority, Paul made the call.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this authority was not given only to Peter, but to other apostles also.

And your chiliastic bias skews your interpretation.

The church is the Israel of God. There is no longer any distinction to be made, the two are now one.

Gill shares my view:

“That ye may eat, and drink, at my table, in my kingdom,.... In the Gospel dispensation, or Gospel church state, in which Christ has a table, called the table of the Lord, 1 Corinthians 10:21 which is the Lord's supper, and is a table well furnished with the best of provisions, his flesh and blood, of which believers may eat and drink with a hearty welcome; Christ himself being present to sup with them: and in his personal reign on earth, where will be the marriage supper of the Lamb, to which all the saints will be called; and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and be regaled with joys and pleasures not to be expressed: and in the ultimate glory, when the Lamb shall feed them, and shall lead them to fountains of water; and they shall never hunger nor thirst more, but shall have fulness of joy, and be satiated with pleasures that will never fade nor end:

and sit on thrones; expressive of the great honour and dignity they were raised to, both in this, and the other world, from a low and mean estate, being before as beggars on the dunghill, now among princes, and on thrones, even on the same throne with Christ; see 1 Samuel 2:8

judging the twelve tribes of Israel; doctrinally and ministerially; accusing the Jews, and arraigning them for the crucifixion of Christ; passing sentence upon them, and condemning them, and declaring that they should be damned for their disbelief and rejection of him;…”

W.R. Daniels shares my view:

“…the kingdom of God was and is at hand, it is here. Jesus said to the disciples in Luke 22:29-30, "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The kingdom that Jesus appointed to the disciples was the kingdom that God had appointed to him. Again, Christ's kingdom which is the kingdom of God given to him, is a spiritual kingdom. It is "the kingdom of heaven." Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (Jo. 18:36).”

…and I’m sure there’s many more that share my non-chiliastic views.

 

The precise terms are not found in the Bible just as the precise term "Trinity" is not found in the Bible but both are clear teachings of Scripture.

Although the Scriptures never call Mt. 28:18-20 the Great Commission, yet nearly all Christendom calls it by that title. Why? All professed Christians recognize this is the final command given to the first church before Christ ascended into heaven, and the final words by Christ would never be trivial, but important and great. This Commission is great in many ways: it is great in its geographical extent—“all nations.” It is great in its temporal extent—“unto the end of the world.” It is also great in its ambition—“teach all nations” (literally translated it reads “make disciples of all nations”). No wonder all Christendom calls it “The Great Commission.”

The keys of the kingdom is given to the church in Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17-18 and the Great Commission is simply the same authority in Matthew 28:18-20.

I can understand why you can't see much in scriptures even though it is spelled out in the clearest terms possible. Matthew 16:19 not only specifically uses "keys of the Kingdom" but then goes on to characterize what functions are found in the administration of the keys.

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Jn 16


Those same functions are clearly described in Matthew 18:18 immediately after identifying "the church" as FINAL AUTHORITY for church members to appeal AFTER they have gone through other steps which includes three or more members attempting to settle the issue.


tell it to the church......18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mt 18


Of course you know all of this as only a blind mind could fail to see it. You are simply arguing to argue, which means discussing anything with you is a hopeless task and worthless as you have no intention of being honest much more apparent in this discussion.

Jesus says "tell it to the church" as the final court of appeals and THAT COMPLETELY DESTROYS YOUR POSITION AND YOU KNOW IT DOES, FOR IF THE KEYS WERE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY HE WOULD HAVE SAID "TELL IT TO THE APOSTLES."

Your incompetency as a Bible interpreter is glaring here. Verse 17 refers to those involved in the process beginning in verses 15-16 and those are not ncessarily apostles - UNLESS you think the only ones that can be offended are apostless??? Or unless you think the offended one can only settle this issue by seeking out apostles BEFORE telling it to the church????

No, it is the offended person who is being told to tell it to the church as his final court of appeals.

You keep repeating the same texts which have been answered and your false interpretation has already been exposed. This is true of anyone who preaches repentance and remission of sins as the Great Commission recorded by Luke explicitly states:

Lk. 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

However, you are defending the Popish doctrine that only a certain class of men are authorized to forgive sins.

 

Why not do your own bible study with the help of the Holyspirit and just ignore the ideas of those monks (ideas of little man)

 

Yep! One Biblical text when contextually interpreted is far better than one hundred quotations from uninspired men.

 

So you say. The term never even came into existence until around mid-1600s. How in the world did the church ever grow and expand prior to that, without that ‘great commission’?

It seems to me that you over emphasize ‘go unto all the nations’, as if tending to things within your own sphere of influence is not enough. Some pertinent questions:

Why was Peter called onto the carpet in Acts 11 for taking the gospel to Cornelius, a Gentile? It's apparent from Acts 11 that 'the eleven' did not perceive NON-JEWS to be included in 'the great commission', as you call it, but were still operating under the charge of Mt 10:

"Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Why Peter's astonishment here if he understood from the gitgo that NON-JEWS were included in this ‘great commission’?:

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.
45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 10

It's clear, those to whom were given 'the great commission', as you call it, did not perceive NON-JEWS to be included in it. Why else would Peter be given the same vision 3 times over in Acts 10 to get him to go to a Gentile?

What ‘the eleven’ DID know (and what mainstream Christianity woefully does not acknowledge), is the extent of the Dispersion of the Jews, it was throughout every nation under heaven, and it also presented the very conduit for the rapid spread of the gospel which was preached in all creation under heaven before the New Testament writings were even completed. Luke frames ‘the great commission’, as you call it, this way:

But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8

Take note Christ said, 'ye shall' receive power, 'ye shall' be my witnesses unto the end of the earth. Period. He didn't say I want you to try to do it, or to give it your best shot, He told them that they indeed would do it.

In the very next chapter Luke records:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit [RECEIVED POWER].......
5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven [UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH].
6 .........every man heard them speaking in his own language [WITNESSES OF CHRIST]. Acts 2

Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. Acts 2:9-11

What do you think that those 'Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven' in Acts 2 did when they all went back home from the feast of Pentecost, after hearing and believing the gospel and themselves having received power from the Holy Spirit?

The preaching at Pentecost was a 'gospel bomb' that fulfilled Christ's words of Acts 1:8.

Yeah, Paul says of it:

Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world. Ro 10:18

The ‘great commission’, as you call it, was given to the apostles and they accomplished it magnificently, just as Christ said they would.

 

This discussion is a waste of both our time.

 

We are all one breath away from eternity! Think! Might today be your last day on earth?
Every day of our lives, we live one breath away from eternity. The most important question of life is: Am I ready to meet God?

If you are not, and you wish to acknowledge God as your Father through His Son, Jesus Christ, just pray this simple prayer and you'll become a member of the family of God, with heaven as your eternal home.

Heavenly Father, I know that I am a sinner and need your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus died for my sins. I am willing to turn away from my sin and live a godly life. I now invite Jesus Christ into my heart as my Lord and Savior. I am willing, with God's help, from this day forward to follow Christ as Lord of my life. In Jesus name I pray. Amen.

At this moment, you have discovered the ultimate secret of being happy in an unhappy world. It's knowing that God is your heavenly Father, that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, and that heaven is your eternal home!

 

Yes, it is quite redundant, isn't it?

 

Good post. It might also be helpful to look at the details of this "Great Commission":

"16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"

Aide from the fact that we are clearly told Christ was speaking to the eleven disciples, we also have Him telling them that they are to pass on all the things He had commanded them. Included in His teaching to them we have points like Matt. 23:1-2

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

This is just one place where Christ taught them precepts that were still from the Old Covenant. These things still had a bearing in the commission of the Disciples, there still being that overlap of ages. There were still many devout Jews who only slowly were coming around. These are those who don't immediately say 'The new wine is better'.

Christ also told them that He had many things to tell them, but they were unable to receive them. For that matter Paul also, in his "anonymous" letter to the Hebrews said something similar.

 

What I object to is Christians who make their particular position on eschatology a fundamental to fellowship and other Christian activity, if not the faith itself. Many allow it be a divisive issue between themselves and other believers, when there is no scriptural basis for that.

Some do it openly, while others do it in secret. Some use it as a means to exclude otherwise qualified brethren from leadership positions. Some make it a condition for membership. This is, of course, unjust at the core and just flat wrong. And like all such things, is rooted in sin.

I've never taken a concrete position on eschatology, though have basically rejected, and still do, the idea that this right here is the kingdom to come the Lord spoke of. That, in itself, seems ridiculous in many ways, chiefly due to the fact that the Lord is not here.

Though never fully committed to any position, and probably never will be, I've pretty much abandoned the position I had 10 years ago, which was largely pre-trib, classic dispensational. That came along, or at least coincided, with the questioning of the classic dispensational position itself, which I've also pretty much abandoned.

I still hold to some things, don't get me wrong. But the main thing, as you pointed out, the fundamental thing, is the bodily return of Jesus. Beyond that, it's baffling to me how people can take such hard, dogmatic positions, on something that God, for His own reasons, didn't clearly spell out.

Even though I once took a solid position, or came close to it, myself, it wasn't a position/belief that I had researched and thought out for myself. I suppose it's only natural to do that, since as young Christians we rely, or at least lean on, the teaching of the Christians around us.

I learned that the hard way. Very hard, with much pain and suffering. But the lesson has proved invaluable over the years, and thanks to God and His grace, I've always been open to testing everything, nothing excluded. And when it comes to eschatology, constantly open to other lines of thought.

That said, some of the cutting edge thinking and research being done in the eschatological field is fascinating. I just wish we wouldn't beat each other up by using eschatology as some kind of measuring stick, which it should not be.
~~~

 

Your problem is that the proper context for this meeting does not begin in verse 16 but all the way back in verse 5 which is more inclusive than the "eleven":

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.......16 ¶ Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.


In this passage of scripture, there are three groups of his followers listed that were to meet him in Galilee at an appointed place, later identified in this same passage as that mount. (1) "The women;" (2) "his disciples" (3) "his brethren." This is the very same division Luke gives in Acts 1:13-14 of the church in Jerusalem.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

These are the same ones who continued stedfastly to meet in Acts 2:1 later called "the church" in Jerusalem (Acts 2:47).

Additionally, Matthew 28:17 says "some doubted" which cannot refer to the "eleven" as Jesus appeared to the eleven twice in Jerusalem before going to Galilee for the purpose to remove all doubt remaining in them with Thomas. Moreover, the women could not be those who doubted as angels appeared to them followed by the appearance of Jesus to them prior to this Galilee appointed place. The only possible ones who could still doubt are "the brethren" in addition to the women and the eleven as there is no recorded appearance unto "the brethren" prior to this Galilee appointment. These "brethren" must have included those considered to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-22 as the replacements had to be eye witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22).

Moreover, this is the only location provided in the gospel accounts where "over five hundred brethren" saw him "at once" (1 Cor. 15:6).

Therefore, to presume that only the eleven were present is simply ignorance of the full context of this event. Moreover, Jesus has already stated that final administrative authority is in the church "tell it to the church" (Mt. 18:17) rather than "tell it to the apostles" or "tell it to the elders"! Moreover, this is the usual manner of Christ when speaking to his churches to address them through its leadership (Rev. 2-3) unless you believe John sent his letters to the churches by "airmail" (literal "angels") but rather he addressed "the churches" through their ordained messengers - or leaders. This is precisely the same manner in Matthew 28:16-20 he would address the church at Jerusalem. And there was a church already in Jerusalem or else he could not have previously said "tell it to the church" (Mt. 18:17).

Finally, the apostles acknowledge they are subject to church authority. It is the church at Jerusalem that sent apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14). Peter brought several brethren as witnesses to the house of Cornelius as he realized he would have to give an account to the church for his actions (Acts 11:1-17). It is the "church" that sends Barnabas to Antioch rather than the apostles (Acts 11:22). It is the church at Antioch that sent out Paul to the mission field (Acts 14:1-3) and returned to this church after every mission. Even though Christ had commissioned him personally, the Holy Spirit sent him through the church. Paul did not take off on his own apart from submitting to and working under the authority of the church at Antioch. It is the church that sends Paul and Barnabas to the Jerusalem counsel (Acts 15:1-3). The one sending always has more authority than the ones being sent. It is not merely James the apostle or the other apostles that determined to send out men but it was the action "with the whole church" (Acts 15:22). In Revelation 2-3 Jesus does not tell the Pastor to enforce his will and exercise discipline over members who resist, but rather addresses "the churches" to hear and obey. The apostles were "set in the church" (1 Cor. 12:28) and so our ancient Baptists when directly asked where does authority lie between the ordained leadership or the church, they responded that the authority lies with the church with its leadership, as they did not view the leadership separate from the church but IN the church.

 

Before He ascended into heaven Christ gave the Great Commission to his eleven disciples. That was his plan. He had no back up plan. What if they failed? Had they failed you or I would not be here today. You certainly would not be posting at this board. You would be doomed to Hell if you did exist. (Had they failed)!
But they didn't fail. They stayed at Jerusalem until Acts 15 and then they began to disperse. Each one became a missionary. Each one was martyred except for John. From Ethiopia to India they carried the Gospel as the Great Commission had commanded them to. Only James remained in Jerusalem as the pastor of the church, and he wasn't even an Apostle. That James was the half-brother of Jesus, the same that wrote the epistle of James.

The church of Jerusalem under the persecution of Saul was scattered.
[FONT=&quot]Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.[/FONT]
--The Great Commission was obeyed, perhaps not in the way they wanted, but it was obeyed nevertheless and the word was preached as they went forth.

They put the principle that Paul taught Timothy into practice:
[FONT=&quot]2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.[/FONT]
--If it were not for this spiritual reproduction principle, this principle of discipleship, you wouldn't be here, would you?
Someone taught someone, and that someone taught someone else, and that someone else continued to teach someone else yet. That is the principle in the Great Commission--one of discipleship. The world cannot be evangelized without it.

He wasn't "called on the carpet."
First,
[FONT=&quot]Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.[/FONT]
--It was obvious God had done a marvelous work, and who could say anything against it?

Second, the brethren in general rejoiced.
Third, the Judaizers, legalistic parasites that followed Paul wherever he went and attempted to destroy his ministry confronted him in chapter 11, as they did in chapter 15, and in Galatia--the reason he wrote the epistle.
[FONT=&quot]Acts 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,[/FONT]
--But Peter rehearsed the whole matter before all:
[FONT=&quot]Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.[/FONT]
--In the presence of Peter and ALL, the Judaizers "held their peace." They had nothing to say.

1. Why did Jesus talk to a Samaritan woman?
2. Why did Jesus heal a Syro-Phoenecian woman?
3. Why did Jesus heal the child of a Roman centurion?
--They were to do as Jesus did.
They were to obey the command of Christ as given in Acts 1:8.
"in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the world." That includes Gentiles.
--Not so apparent as you perceive; in fact not that apparent at all. You idea contradicts scripture.

Peter understood this all too well. He is explaining what he understood to others who did not understand as he did.

Answer this:
At the end of chapter 9, well before this incident began, Peter healed Dorcas at Joppa. Now look where he stayed immediately after that:
[FONT=&quot]Acts 9:42 And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord.
43 And it came to pass, that he tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.[/FONT]
--Why would he stay with a tanner, one who uses different hides of animals (including swine) to make hides?
A.T. Robertson says:

1. He lodges with one who is ceremonially unclean.
2. He eats with the same person.
3. He receives a vision on his housetop to eat unclean food.
4. He is commanded not to call anything that God has called clean, "unclean." He realizes this application is not only to food but also to men.
5. Just as the vision ends some Gentile men come asking for him.
--Could Peter really be that dense as to not to not to know to go with these men. No, but the Holy Spirit tells him to go anyway, just for insurance.
[FONT=&quot]Acts 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.[/FONT]

A prejudice that had grown over centuries. They had Abraham as their father. It would take time to shed that prejudice.

Let's look at another translation and maybe it will help:
[FONT=&quot]Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. You will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth."[/FONT] (WEB)
It is a simple command given in the future tense. It is a command that could either be obeyed or disobeyed.
How much of this command did John, the brother of James obey?
He never even got to gather with the apostles to see Paul in Acts 13 nor at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
[FONT=&quot]Acts 12:2 He killed James, the brother of John, with the sword.[/FONT]
BTW, this is the baptism with fire that Jesus promised them--fires of suffering and persecution.
--And Stephen?
[FONT=&quot]Acts 7:59 They stoned Stephen as he called out, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit!"[/FONT]
--That is before Saul was even saved.

 

1. What does "under heaven mean"?
Here is what Barnes says:

It is simply a general expression not to be taken so literally as you are.
You are a funny guy. You want to take small expressions that you know are idiomatic literally, just to try and make a point. At the same time you want to allegorize great portions of scripture, even an entire book like the book of Revelation to deny great spiritual truths. Whatever fits, eh?

What do you mean here?
"6 .........every man heard them speaking in his own language [WITNESSES OF CHRIST]. Acts 2"
--Every man heard in his own language the wonderful works of God.
They were not eyewitnesses of the resurrection Christ.
When Jesus said to the eleven: "Ye are witnesses of "these things," he was speaking of being eye-witnesses to his resurrection and the events surrounding it.
Look further in the same passage:
[FONT=&quot]Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.[/FONT]
--To be a witness of speaking in another language was a relatively small thing. To be a witness of the resurrection of Christ was very important indeed.
"They were 'witnesses of these things.'" What things? The events surrounding the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Concerning us, however, our mission is still to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
That command, and its urgency, has not diminished one iota.

"The preaching at Pentecost was a 'gospel bomb' that fulfilled Christ's words of Acts 1:8."
The only sermon that was preached was the sermon that Peter preached. He preached to the Jews, even the very ones that crucified Christ.
No one else preached.
That which was spoken in other languages (tongues) was not the gospel at all.
[FONT=&quot]Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.[/FONT]
There is no gospel in "what God has done," "the works of God," etc. The gospel wasn't being preached here.