The Commission to Preach to All the Nations

[RedFan]

In Matt. 28:19 and in Luke 24:47, Christ reportedly commissions his apostles to spread the gospel to “all the nations.” The Greek word ethnē translated as “nations” in these verses is universally interpreted to include Gentiles―making it a complete reversal of Christ’s earlier instruction to the apostles to reach out only to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6) and of his prediction that the apostles won’t complete their mission to the Jews before his return (Matt. 10:23).

It strains logic to assume that his disciples could have understood Jesus’ last words to refer to other than Gentiles. Whatever word he spoke to his disciples (in Aramaic?) that got translated as ethnē by the gospel writers, there is no reason to presume a mistranslation. In my view, there is far more reason to presume a fabrication. If Christ truly commissioned an outreach to the Gentiles, how are we to make sense of Acts 10 and 11? In these chapters Peter encounters Cornelius, a Gentile, and through a dream comes to the conclusion that the gospel is not to be restricted to Jews. He reports the dream and the conclusion to his Christian brethren in Jerusalem, who at first are quite critical of Peter, but then come to accept his explanation.

If Christ’s parting words to his disciples before His ascension instructed them to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, wouldn’t you think they’d remember it? Wouldn’t you think that Peter and the brethren in Jerusalem would have embraced rather than questioned the practice of reaching out to the Gentiles? Why, then, their surprise? It’s mystifying. I can’t make sense out of it if the Great Commission was given precisely as rendered.

 

[Gorgias]

In Matt. 28:19 and in Luke 24:47, Christ reportedly commissions his apostles to spread the gospel to “all the nations.” The Greek word ethnē translated as “nations” in these verses is universally interpreted to include Gentiles

Psst… that’s because that’s what the Jewish word for “Gentile” means…!

making it a complete reversal of Christ’s earlier instruction (Matt. 10:5-6) … and of his prediction (Matt. 10:23).

Not quite. In Mt 10:5-6, Jesus is sending the apostles on a preliminary mission – namely, “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They return from this mission – Luke speaks explicitly about their reaction, but we also see that they’ve returned in Mt 14.

In Mt 10:23, one must carefully discern what’s being said. At the time of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel, ministry to the Gentiles had already begun – after all, Paul had already founded many Churches among Gentile communities! So, if you want to assert that Mt 10:23 says that they hadn’t yet finished ministering to the “house of Israel” (and begun preaching to the Gentiles) by the time of the writing of Matthew (~70AD?), then you’re going to have to substantiate that claim. On its face, it doesn’t hold water.

In my view, there is far more reason to presume a fabrication. If Christ truly commissioned an outreach to the Gentiles, how are we to make sense of Acts 10 and 11? In these chapters Peter encounters Cornelius, a Gentile, and through a dream comes to the conclusion that the gospel is not to be restricted to Jews.

No… in these chapters, we see Peter dealing with an issue that had confounded the Jewish Christians of his day. Namely, they didn’t know whether, as Christians, they were still bound to all the tenets of Mosaic Law. Peter’s vision informs him that the Mosaic dietary law was no longer required to be followed by Jewish Christians.

Note that this would not have been an issue unless there was contact with Gentile Christians! We see this in Acts 11: the complaint of the “circumsized believers” in Jerusalem isn’t that Gentiles had been baptized – it was that Peter, as a Jew, entered their house and ate with them!

If you want to make the case that this notion of “preaching to the nations” is a later corruption, then you can look to the fact that Peter’s speech in Acts 10 references “the people” (laos) in v42, and not “the nations” (ethne). However, if you’re going to make that claim, you’ll have to explain why the editor who made that change failed to do so with Luke’s other book – in Luke 24:47, Jesus instructs the apostles to proclaim His message “to all nations” (ethne).

So… either it’s real, or if it’s a fabrication, you have to explain why it’s a poorly constructed but undetected fabrication.

If Christ’s parting words to his disciples before His ascension instructed them to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, wouldn’t you think they’d remember it?

I think they did remember it – but they were trying to juxtapose that command with their understanding of their duties as Jews…

 

[RedFan]

if it’s a fabrication, you have to explain why it’s a poorly constructed but undetected fabrication.

I cannot speak to the detection, but I can offer an explanation of the addition:

The tradition of outreach to the Gentiles was so well established by the time that the final verses of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel were penned that it would be unthinkable not to enshrine the mission with Jesus’ own directive. Mark 13:10 tells us that before the end arrives “The gospel must first be preached to all the nations,” while Mark 14:9 concludes the story of the anointing at Bethany with “Wherever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, what this woman hath done shall be also told, in memory of her,” and it seems unlikely in the extreme that the author intended only a world-wide outreach to Jews. By the time of John’s gospel, the issue is settled: John 1:29 has the Baptist saying “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world;” John 3:16 admonishes that “God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son;” John 10:16 quotes Jesus as desiring to bring the “other sheep” into the one flock; John 12:20-21 has Greeks asking after Jesus; and so on. These authors are solicitous of a global religion.

 

[Gorgias]

I cannot speak to the detection, but I can offer an explanation of the addition:

I’m not seeing how this shows an ‘addition’, however. Paul’s missions that created Gentile Churches preceded the writing of any Gospel. The timeline of Acts demonstrates this, as does the dating of his epistles.

That being the case, your argument here devolves into an assertion that the oral tradition which gave rise to the Gospels was what was ‘modified’. There is nothing that might support such a claim.

Am I missing something in your argument, perhaps?

 

[RedFan]

Perhaps. My explanation for Matthew’s possible addition doesn’t prove that it the verse IS an addition to Jesus’ actual words. It just offers a reason for why the author might have put the words on Jesus’ lips. Obviously Jesus spoke – and thus the apostles who heard him got their marching orders – before Paul’s outreach to the Gentiles.

 

[Gorgias]

My explanation for Matthew’s possible addition doesn’t prove that it the verse IS an addition to Jesus’ actual words. It just offers a reason for why the author might have put the words on Jesus’ lips.

Hmm… but, correct me if I’m wrong: you’re asserting – without evidence or argument – that Matthew changed the words of Jesus to say something that you want to suggest He didn’t… right?

 

[RedFan]

I’m putting the possibility out there (as a way to explain Acts 10 and 11 as well at Matt. 10). Obviously I wasn’t present, so I don’t know what was said. Whether you want to characterize that as “evidence” or “argument” is up to you, I guess.

 

[RedFan]

On further reflection (and study), I must take issue with the notion that Acts 10-11 was simply dealing with table-fellowship and other legal requirements imposed on Jews in their interactions with Gentiles. From what I have read, the consensus is that Luke does “ascribe an initial validation of the Gentile Mission to the initiative of Peter at Caesarea, duly approved by the Jerusalem.” Beare, “The Sequence of Events in Acts 9-15 and the Career of Peter,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Dec., 1943), p. 297. It is put even more strongly by Bond, Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology (Jan. 2002, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p. 80) (“For Peter to extend the gospel to a Gentile represents a fundamental paradigm shift, raising the question of what kind of messiah Jesus really is. Is Jesus a savior beyond the House of Israel?”).

In the end, though, it would be difficult to improve on the observation of Best, “The Revelation to Evangelize the Gentiles,” The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (April 1984), pp. 11:

“Nor do we need to settle whether Peter’s vision originally related to table-fellowship with Gentiles or to their admission into the church (the two are not unrelated); in its Lucan setting it clearly answers the question about admission and may be understood parabolically."

 

[Gorgias]

I’m putting the possibility out there (as a way to explain Acts 10 and 11 as well at Matt. 10). Obviously I wasn’t present, so I don’t know what was said. Whether you want to characterize that as “evidence” or “argument” is up to you, I guess.

OK. So, it’s just “conjecture”, then. Got it.

 

[RedFan]

Well, not all of it is conjecture.

It’s not conjecture that “Luke’s supernaturalist explanation of the gentile mission competes with that of Matthew (Mt xxviii 19).” Brown, “The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission,” Novum Testamentum, Vol. 22, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1980), p. 204.

It’s not conjecture that "The same Jesus who, during his earthly ministry, forbids the Twelve a mission among the Gentiles and Samaritans is also the Jesus who, as the exalted Son of Man, commands the Eleven to make disciples of panta ta Ethne.” John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Matt 5:17-48 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976) p.27.

I’m just looking for an explanation of the Cornelius story in the face of the Great Commission. I initially thought your table fellowship explanation might suffice. I no longer think so. I now think that “what Luke achieves through this incident is not simply tablefellowship between Jews and gentiles, but recognition that gentiles too have received the Holy Spirit (10:45) and have been granted by God “repentance unto life.”" Crockett, “Luke 4:25-27 and Jewish-Gentile Relations in Luke-Acts,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, No. 2 (Jun., 1969), p. 180.

Just looking for the best explanation, and throwing possibilities out for discussion . . . which I thought is what this Forum is for.

 

[End_Timer]

Isaiah 49:6

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light to the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

That’s all igot2say

 

[Gorgias]

Just looking for the best explanation, and throwing possibilities out for discussion . . . which I thought is what this Forum is for.

One note, though: the fact that Jesus focused on evangelization to Israel during His earthly ministry isn’t really relevant to this conversation, is it? I mean, unless you go all tinfoil hat and say “see! the earlier mission proves that there was a conspiracy!”, then the earlier mission is irrelevant…

 

[RedFan]

Oh, I am far from concluding that there was a conspiracy!