The Great Commission

[jimkenney12]

I will post a copy of the reading of Matthew 28:16-20 later today. It is part of the lectionary for next Sunday which is the day after the 98th anniversary of the inauguration of the United Church of Canada.

The founders of the UCC, with the imperialist mindset of the time, envisioned the church as Canada's national church, and it had close to that status for a long time. While much smaller churches led the way on social issues, the UCC usually led the way among the larger churches in those issues.

My questions begin with what it might mean to make disciples of all the nations today? For the UCC today it means promoting our concepts of justice from women's rights through LGBTW+ to other marginalized people and economic issues.

Why is baptism in the name of the triune God the key action?

How much confidence do we have that Jesus said this?

 

[Mendalla]

Here's the link to the NRSVUE version on Biblegateway:

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 28:16-20 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

The Commissioning of the Disciples - Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshiped him, but they doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Mendalla]

Interesting observation on the "plot". It says, "When they saw him, they worshiped him, but they doubted" and then it goes on to Jesus giving the Great Commission. So if they "doubted" how did they react to the Great Commission? I mean, there's possibly a whole story there that's seemingly missing from Matthew.

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 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you

It is interesting that this was interpreted in an Imperialist way so many times in Christian history. Forced baptisms, efforts to stamp out other religions in favour of Christianity, and so on. And, yet, nothing here suggests doing anything more than Jesus and the Twelve had already been doing: Preaching and teaching and then baptizing them. I don't get the sense, at least taken in the context of what has gone before, that he was envisioning the imperialist kind of Christianity (Christendom, if you like) that ended up happening. Yes, it can be taken that way in isolation, but when you consider how Jesus himself approached spreading the word, I don't think that's really what was meant.

Was the Trinity already becoming a thing by Matthew's time (after 70CE for sure since he references the destruction of Jerusalem, Britannica gives 70-80CE)? Later interpolation? Not sure of the exact timing of that doctrine.

 

[Luce NDs]

As long as the commissions were healthy the separate souls would enter those strange essences ... like Ephraim in the desert with those other characters ... success is the thing and screw those without advantage ... disseminate? It must be dissembled ... to be beamed down ... especially through the turtle shells used for soup holders ... there the mission Aries were cooked ...

 

[Mystic]

"..to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them."

When did Jesus direct them to this mountain and why? In the Jerusalem appearance?
Did word that Jesus would reappear at this specific place attract the 500+ Galilean witnesses to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 15;6?
Almost all of Jerus' followers lived in Galilee and the Decapolis region, not way down south in Judea. Matthew sometimes mentions the presence of the 12 when it is known that others were also present.

It's hard to believe "some doubted" if this appearance was confined to the 11, who had already experienced 2 appearances in Jerusalem. But this is a first-time appearance for the 500+.

In the NT church baptism is the normal vehicle that precedes the experience of receiving the Holy Spirit.

And what does Jesus mean by saying, "Remember, I am with you always, even to the end of the age?" The case can be made that He means His converts will experience an intimate personal relationship with Him.

 

[jimkenney12]

In Matthew, Jesus tells Mary to tell the rest to meet him in Galilee as planned.

 

[Mystic]

In Matthew, Jesus tells Mary to tell the rest to meet him in Galilee as planned.

But no mention is made of the specific mountain where Jesus would appear. 2 candidates loom large:
(1) the site of the Sermon on the Mount with its excellent accoustics for a mass audience.
(2) the mountain where Jesus fed the 5,000. This strikes me as the most likely locale, having visited both mounts.

 

[Redbaron]

When did Jesus direct them to this mountain and why? In the Jerusalem appearance?
Did word that Jesus would reappear at this specific place attract the 500+ Galilean witnesses to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 15;6?
Almost all of Jerus' followers lived in Galilee and the Decapolis region, not way down south in Judea. Matthew sometimes mentions the presence of the 12 when it is known that others were also present.

I note that Paul's wording indicates there was an appearance to 500 or more, then an appearance to James, and then to all the apostles. (1 Cor. 15:6-7) Matthew has Jesus meeting with the 11disciples (presumably the ones he called apostles) on a mountain. Why is there any reason to assume that there were any more there than the 11 Matthew mentions, or the ones called apostles that Paul noted?

 

[Mystic]

I note that Paul's wording indicates there was an appearance to 500 or more, then an appearance to James, and then to all the apostles. (1 Cor. 15:6-7) Matthew has Jesus meeting with the 11disciples (presumably the ones he called apostles) on a mountain. Why is there any reason to assume that there were any more there than the 11 Matthew mentions, or the ones called apostles that Paul noted?

(1) I repeat: Paul, Luke, and John all agree that that Jesus' first appearance to a group of His male apostles is the appearance to the 11, which the Gospels locate in Jerusalem. That appearance satisfies the doubts of the 11. So the fact that "some doubted" the authenticity of the appearance on a Galilean mount already suggests the presence of first-timers.
(2) The phrase "to the place where Jesus had directed them" implies advance notice of the mount where Jesus would appear. Once word got out among Jesus' other Galilean followerers, every follower would want to be present. Indeed, the gathering of 500+ followers at one place shortly after Easter seems otherwise inexplicable, apart from such a directive.
(3) Matthew mentions Jesus' commission of the 12 on a missionary tour, but Q originally mentions a commissioning of 70. Matthew locates only "the 12:" at the Last Supper, but we know that more than 12 were present. So Matthew's mention of "the 11" on the mount need not mean that only the 11 were present.

 

[Redbaron]

But why would Jesus send a bunch of doubting newbies on a Great Commission? It seems to me that a commission such as this would be reserved for the 11 apostles who had some experience of being sent out by Jesus, and when THAT first happened, they were not new disciples. Why send in a batch of raw recruits, if that's what they were?
One would hope Jesus would have more sense than that.

 

[Mystic]

But why would Jesus send a bunch of doubting newbies on a Great Commission? It seems to me that a commission such as this would be reserved for the 11 apostles who had some experience of being sent out by Jesus, and when THAT first happened, they were not new disciples. Why send in a batch of raw recruits, if that's what they were?
One would hope Jesus would have more sense than that.

First, only 'some' of the 500+ newbies doubted.
Second, Thomas initially doubted the testimony of the other 10 apostles.
Third, for Paul, an apostle is someone who has seen the risen Lord. Paul celebrates Junia (a woman) and Andronicus as "apostles" and acknowledges that they were already apostles prior to His conversion. So this pair likely shared in the appearance to the 500+.

 

[Redbaron]

But now you're conflating different accounts that probably shouldn't be conflated. A strict reading of Matthew's conclusion says 11. were there. And given all that had gone on recently, some of their heads might have been spinning a bit.

 

[Mystic]

But now you're conflating different accounts that probably shouldn't be conflated. A strict reading of Matthew's conclusion says 11. were there. And given all that had gone on recently, some of their heads might have been spinning a bit.

A strict reading of Matthew identifies "the 12" as present at the Last Supper. But Matthew copies Mark and Mark identifies a "young man" who was present in Gethsemane and therefore at the Last Supper. Matthew identifies only "the 12" as sent out on a missionary tour, but Luke using the same source, identifies the number as 70. The Gospel of Hebrews locates Jesus' brother James at the Last Supper as well.
No Gospel mentions any doubters but Thomas among the 11 at a resurrection appearance--and Thomas is invited to thrust his hand in Jesus' wounds. It's absurd to claim that the 11 would still doubt after that.

 

[paradox3]

It's absurd to claim that the 11 would still doubt after that.

You might think it's absurd but that seems to be what Matthew is saying. The disciples saw Jesus, they worshipped him and they doubted.

For some of us, this defines a life of faith quite precisely.

 

[Mystic]

You might think it's absurd but that seems to be what Matthew is saying. The disciples saw Jesus, they worshipped him and they doubted.

For some of us, this defines a life of faith quite precisely.

You might think it's absurd but that seems to be what Matthew is saying. The disciples saw Jesus, they worshipped him and they doubted.

For some of us, this defines a life of faith quite precisely.

First, Matthew never says, "They doubted;" he says "some doubted" without identifying whom.
Second, Matthew records an appearance preceded by advanced notice of locale. Do you honestly believe Jesus' other Galilean followers would not want to be present or that the 11 would not notify others of this pending momentous appearance?
Third, you conveniently ignore Matthew's editorial practice of mentioning only the 11 (or 12), when we know from his use of sources that others were present besides the 11.
Fourth, you conveniently ignore how Jesus proved His bodily resurrection to Doubting Thomas in the presence of the other 10 apostles. That refutes your analogy with modern doubts of seekers who have witnessed no such miracle.

 

[Redbaron]

A strict reading of Matthew identifies "the 12" as present at the Last Supper. But Matthew copies Mark and Mark identifies a "young man" who was present in Gethsemane and therefore at the Last Supper. Matthew identifies only "the 12" as sent out on a missionary tour, but Luke using the same source, identifies the number as 70. The Gospel of Hebrews locates Jesus' brother James at the Last Supper as well.
No Gospel mentions any doubters but Thomas among the 11 at a resurrection appearance--and Thomas is invited to thrust his hand in Jesus' wounds. It's absurd to claim that the 11 would still doubt after that.

No. There is absolutely no reason that Mark' s young man was present at the supper. The garden would have been an open, public space, anybody could have been going through.
But I digress. Back to the Commission. What would it mean to teach them to obey everything that I commanded you? (And if there had been newbies there, would they have had time to 'learn everything' that they were supposed to go teach?)

 

[Redbaron]

Thomas was in John's Gospel, not in Matthew's Gospel. You are conflating two different traditions again.

 

[Redbaron]

I stand corrected. Thomas appears in the lists of the 12 in the synoptics. Yet he seems to only speak or act (or doubt) in John's Gospel.
Still, this is beside the point of the Great Commission.

 

[Mystic]

No. There is absolutely no reason that Mark' s young man was present at the supper. The garden would have been an open, public space, anybody could have been going through.

First, the disciples go as a group from the house of the Last Supper to the Mount of Olives, and then to Gethsemane. Gethsemane is a small area packed with olive trees, one still standing from Jesus' time. It is not a place for strangers to hang out.
Second, "the young man" dares to follow the arresting police and is grabbed for his trouble, suggesting that he, too, is a follower of Jesus. Indeed, church tradition identifies him as Jesus' brother James, the same James who plays a role at the Last Supper according to the tradition of Gospel of Hebrews.
Third, there are 2 unnamed men, one of whom leads the way to the house of the Last Supper and the other of whom is "the owner of the house." There is no reason to believe these 2 men were not also present at the Last Supper.

But I digress. Back to the Commission. What would it mean to teach them to obey everything that I commanded you? (And if there had been newbies there, would they have had time to 'learn everything' that they were supposed to go teach?)

Duh, "newbies" is your term, not mine. They are only newbies in the sense that they have not yet experienced a resurrection appearance. They are Galilean followers of Jesus who know His teaching and have surely been told where the prearranged appearance of Jesus would occur. Or do you actually believe the disciples would not be eager for others to see the risen Jesus just as they have? Besides, you duck the unlikelihood of 500+ followers of Jesus gathering in one specific place after the discovery of the empty tomb, unless they are gathered with the expectation of a major happening like a resurrection appearance.
Remember, Jesus' ministry was primarily directed at Galileans and He spent very little time converting Jerusalem residents. So the 500+ witnesses are likely Galilean followers returning home after Passover in Jerusalem.

 

[Redbaron]

It seems to me that for many years Christendom has heard the Great Commission as Jesus's authorization to run roughshod over all the world, converting the 'heathen,' whether or not the heathen wanted to be so treated. That kind of reading has led to many disasters, alas disasters only seen and acknowledged after the fact (for example, the Residential Schools debacle.) Is there another way of hearing this Commission that leads to love, justice, hope, peace and joy, rather than forcing our beliefs and traditions on others?