J
junostarlighter
Guest
i asked a non-den. fundamentalist pastor of what he thought of matt 28. he responded with:
You mention “Jesus delegates all authority to the apostles”, referring to Matthew 28:18-20. I find that logic surprising from you, since Matthew 28:18-20 states specifically that “all authority” (not partial or limited authority) was given to Jesus, and he makes no reference at all to transferring that authority to anyone else, much less the apostles some of whom doubted him even as they worshipped him (see Matthew 28:17, the immediate verse before.)
Jesus indicated that they would go, not as a command, but as a statement of fact. The main verb is “make disciples” from mathetizo, a verb of causation (suffix -izo to a root noun concept) toward a product, in this case, “to make” learners or disciples. The verb “go” in Matthew 28:19 is not an imperative, but simply an aorist participle, indicating “after you have gone.” It is simply an acknowledged fact that they will go. But then, the command is to make disciples, baptizing… and teaching… No implication that authority was transferred to the apostles occurs. The events of Luke 9 are a different story, but even then, the text is not supported by the English translations, or by the self-supporting interpretations of modern churches and leaders. You’ve got to go deeper than that.
Much more, there is no indication (either in the text itself or in the first few centuries of the church of Jesus) that the “apostles” equaled the organization of the Catholic Church of Rome, regardless of claims made in the sixth century by those who had a vested interest in self-proclamation that their organization was equal to and sole proprietor of the apostolic group of the gospels. In fact, the concept of the apostolic group is mentioned in the book of Acts only up to Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, when Paul and Barnabas met with the apostles and elders concerning the full sharing of the gospel with Gentiles without their having to become Jews first. James, not an apostle but an elder, speaks for the leaders of the church, in the concluding decision. After that time (including the writings of Paul prior to and following the Jerusalem Council of AD 50), the apostles are never mentioned again. Only the elders are seen as the leaders of the emerging church. The apostles as a group disappear entirely. Apostolic succession was never maintained, regardless of what is now claimed by the Roman church. Or the Mormons for that matter. Or C. Peter Wagner in the modern day.
hmmmmm…what do the rest of you think about this?
You mention “Jesus delegates all authority to the apostles”, referring to Matthew 28:18-20. I find that logic surprising from you, since Matthew 28:18-20 states specifically that “all authority” (not partial or limited authority) was given to Jesus, and he makes no reference at all to transferring that authority to anyone else, much less the apostles some of whom doubted him even as they worshipped him (see Matthew 28:17, the immediate verse before.)
Jesus indicated that they would go, not as a command, but as a statement of fact. The main verb is “make disciples” from mathetizo, a verb of causation (suffix -izo to a root noun concept) toward a product, in this case, “to make” learners or disciples. The verb “go” in Matthew 28:19 is not an imperative, but simply an aorist participle, indicating “after you have gone.” It is simply an acknowledged fact that they will go. But then, the command is to make disciples, baptizing… and teaching… No implication that authority was transferred to the apostles occurs. The events of Luke 9 are a different story, but even then, the text is not supported by the English translations, or by the self-supporting interpretations of modern churches and leaders. You’ve got to go deeper than that.
Much more, there is no indication (either in the text itself or in the first few centuries of the church of Jesus) that the “apostles” equaled the organization of the Catholic Church of Rome, regardless of claims made in the sixth century by those who had a vested interest in self-proclamation that their organization was equal to and sole proprietor of the apostolic group of the gospels. In fact, the concept of the apostolic group is mentioned in the book of Acts only up to Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, when Paul and Barnabas met with the apostles and elders concerning the full sharing of the gospel with Gentiles without their having to become Jews first. James, not an apostle but an elder, speaks for the leaders of the church, in the concluding decision. After that time (including the writings of Paul prior to and following the Jerusalem Council of AD 50), the apostles are never mentioned again. Only the elders are seen as the leaders of the emerging church. The apostles as a group disappear entirely. Apostolic succession was never maintained, regardless of what is now claimed by the Roman church. Or the Mormons for that matter. Or C. Peter Wagner in the modern day.
hmmmmm…what do the rest of you think about this?
