A Word of Love

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Your major reasoning throughout this entire argument is that the word in Matt 28 is spoken to the 11, not to everyone. Yet at the same time you admit that the two promises spoken to the 11 in this section are applicable to everyone.

I find it amazing that you cannot fathom that something said to only a few could be meant for only them and something else said to only a few could be a general statement with broad applicability. You are focused on the fact that it is said to only the 11/12 and since some things said to them is meant for everyone, then they must all be and therefore assume that since I think that one of them is potentially only meant for them that I must think that all such statements are only meant for them.

The is a thing called context and the contexts and the wording in the various places are not the same, therefore not necessarily identical.

If you want to discuss the contextual differences and show how I should read them the same, that is fine. But you are ignoring the whole of the context and forcing all to be identical simply because there is one factor the same. It doesn't rise to the level of reasonable evidence for me. You need to make a case on each specific situation for or against any particular reading. You can't make one factor dismiss all others.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I find it amazing that you cannot fathom that something said to only a few could be meant for only them and something else said to only a few could be a general statement with broad applicability.

Of course I could fathom it, otherwise why even have this discussion? But what evidence have you provided? Context?

The context is

1. This is the conclusion of the book of Matthew, a book written for all believers. Therefore I find it strange that at such a crucial juncture there would be an aside meant only for 11 and recorded as an FYI. Not impossible, but unlikely.

2. In this conclusion all authority is given to the resurrected and ascended Lord who has been made head over all things to the church. It is based on this authority that he tells His disciples to go and disciple the nations. Based on the fact that this charge is a direct result of all authority given to the Lord I have to believe that this charge is to the church, since according to Ephesians the power that was wrought in raising Christ from the dead and making Him head over all was given to the church.

3. The context is that these disciples, upon hearing this charge, would go off and spread the gospel with signs and wonders following them, demonstrating that the Lord was with them and all Power was given to Him. The fact that this is so means that I can look at their lives and their work as an example of what it means to "go and disciple the nations". They have been given to me as a pattern, even as Paul said. Why would Paul tell me to "be imitators of me" if I wasn't meant to be an imitator of him? So my question to you is, can't you understand that some words in the Bible require examples and illustrations to be understood? Hence the book of Acts was not an aside, it was not a FYI, it illustrated what it means to go and disciple the nations.

4. The context is that the work of discipling the nations did not stop and cease 1900 years ago once these 11 died. It did not cease with the lands immediately adjacent to the Mediterranean, but history shows us it has gone to the furthest corners of the Earth. History also has shown us through many testimonies that this gospel did go in the power of the Holy Spirit, with signs and wonders, once again testifying that these promises made to the eleven are equally applicable to those as well. Therefore biographies of Hudson Taylor, or William Carey, or Martin Luther, or Billy Graham, or others can also illustrate what it means to go and disciple the nations.

5. Experience and history has shown that the bulk of the work of discipling the nations has been done by the Body of Christ as the church. By any reasonable measure there are more people being discipled today and taught to observe all things that Jesus taught today than there ever were by the original 11. How is it that you cannot comprehend that a brother or sister teaching sunday school today is walking according to this charge? A teenager preaching the gospel at their school is walking according to this charge? A bible study, home meeting, or sunday morning worship is walking according to this charge?

6. A key component to Paul's ministry was to teach that although he was called to be an apostle, even so, every member of the Body of Christ has a calling, has a function, and this function is according to the Lord's commission to the Body. Regardless of what this function is, the analogy is a human body with many different members all functioning. Now how can you not see that Christ is the head of that Body and that this body has gone to the four corners of the Earth, discipling the nations and teaching them to obey all the things the Lord has said? Did the apostle Paul ever come to NYC and disciple the nations here? Who is doing that? The church is, and every member of the body is therefore walking according to this charge.

7. The context of the book of Matthew is that Jesus "will build His church". According to Ephesians, the conclusion of Matthew, the conclusion of the crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus, is that He resurrected from the dead, ascended to the heavens, and all authority was given to Him to be head over the church. Building the church is a major theme of Matthew, it is built on the critical revelation of the entire book -- Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. We see this again when he resurrects and becomes the Head of the Body. Limiting that conclusion to a word meant only for the 11 limits the revelation of this book.

So I see lots of evidence, whether the writings of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, or church history, or even my own experience to know that this word from the Lord is still very much in force to all of us: "Go and disciple the nations, teaching them to obey all things that the Lord has spoken"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course I could fathom it, otherwise why even have this discussion? But what evidence have you provided? Context?

The context is

1. This is the conclusion of the book of Matthew, a book written for all believers. Therefore I find it strange that at such a crucial juncture there would be an aside meant only for 11 and recorded as an FYI. Not impossible, but unlikely.

I guess that sending out 70 was code for sending out everyone. I have not bothered to look into whether this is mentioned in Matthew. But I would presume that the same argument would be made for all of the gospels. And it is the use of a broad brush full of whitewash to make it all one way.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2. In this conclusion all authority is given to the resurrected and ascended Lord who has been made head over all things to the church. It is based on this authority that he tells His disciples to go and disciple the nations. Based on the fact that this charge is a direct result of all authority given to the Lord I have to believe that this charge is to the church, since according to Ephesians the power that was wrought in raising Christ from the dead and making Him head over all was given to the church.

And so, since all power is given to the church, this word has to be a general commission.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They have been given to me as a pattern, even as Paul said. Why would Paul tell me to "be imitators of me" if I wasn't meant to be an imitator of him?/

Paul's statement meant to mean that they should do all the things that he does and in the way he does time?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

4. The context is that the work of discipling the nations did not stop and cease 1900 years ago once these 11 died.

You have forgotten that from the very first, I did not say that it was only to the 11, but to those who have the charge to give their lives to it. And that does not mean that our lives are not given to Christ, but that we each have different parts in the whole "enterprise" of the church.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore biographies of Hudson Taylor, or William Carey, or Martin Luther, or Billy Graham, or others can also illustrate what it means to go and disciple the nations.

And I would agree. And it might be that even in my alternate reading that these people are clearly among those charged in Matthew 28.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

5. Experience and history has shown that the bulk of the work of discipling the nations has been done by the Body of Christ as the church. By any reasonable measure there are more people being discipled today and taught to observe all things that Jesus taught today than there ever were by the original 11.

Still missing th point. It never was intended to be simply to the 11 then dormant or completed. But what I am talking about is not simply what we all can "do."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is it that you cannot comprehend that a brother or sister teaching Sunday school today is walking according to this charge? A teenager preaching the gospel at their school is walking according to this charge? A bible study, home meeting, or Sunday morning worship is walking according to this charge?

Each of these are components of our charge. Of the living of the Christian life. Surely it is evident that the whole process requires us all. But the underpinning of coming to sufficient knowledge to do those things required that someone disciple us and teach us to obey. It required that someone that we accepted as speaking for God (not just in a "prophetic" way) directed us

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

7. The context of the book of Matthew is that Jesus "will build His church".

That is a lens through which you choose to read Matthew. It is an important passage in Matthew that constitutes less than half of one chapter. But it is not simply "the context" of Matthew.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to Ephesians, the conclusion of Matthew, the conclusion of the crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus, is that He resurrected from the dead, ascended to the heavens, and all authority was given to Him to be head over the church.

?????

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Building the church is a major theme of Matthew, it is built on the critical revelation of the entire book -- Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

I do not want anyone to think that I consider the church a minor theme, but "the church" seems to be mentioned twice. They are not insignificant mentions, but to call it a major theme is to suggest seriously colored glasses.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Limiting that conclusion to a word meant only for the 11 limits the revelation of this book.

Baloney. Only if you are insistent that without it being personally to you that your calling by God is knocked-down in importance. But importance to who? You calling is important as it is without that verse. It is not diminished. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I see lots of evidence, whether the writings of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, or church history, or even my own experience to know that this word from the Lord is still very much in force to all of us: "Go and disciple the nations, teaching them to obey all things that the Lord has spoken"

Paul does not directly refer to this, even in Ephesians 1. Acts sort of does, but probably not the way you think. Church history bears out to me that there have always been those who have a charge to keep us focused and moving in our discipleship and keeping focused on our obedience and righteousness. And within this framework there is significant "work" for us. Part of it is in things like teaching Sunday school, talking to our friends and neighbors, etc.

And none of what I am suggesting is to diminish what we do, or its importance or significance. I just see what seems to me to be an indication that there is something in this particular charge that we have missed in the past. A charge that is important to the church but is not generally to all of us. It is actually happening the way I understand it anyway. The only thing is that I think this passage is talking about it the way I am seeing it.

[ZNPaaneah]

OBW: Can you give us an example of a Christian who is faithful to the calling to which they were called and that this word in Matthew does not apply to?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OBW: Can you give us an example of a Christian who is faithful to the calling to which they were called and that this word in Matthew does not apply to?

I now realize that there is a dense fog hovering over this discussion. Everything I say comes back as part of a question that does not resemble the issues/questions/proposals I have raised.

Give you an example? Yours work just fine. How about a Sunday school teacher for children, or the teenage girl speaking to her classmates or neighborhood friends. Under my reading of this passage, these are part of the general calling we all receive but not as part of the commission in Matthew 28. It seems that the problem is that you don’t recognize that I am not changing the reality of the calling(s) that we each receive for various works of ministry. I am simply suggesting that this particular passage is not the basis for that calling. It seems that it just might be a more specific calling that is not so broadly applicable.

And finding examples will not determine whether I am right or wrong. It will just prove that there really are different callings for all of us.

In other words, even if I am right, nothing of substance changes because I am not saying that we don’t have the calling we have, but that the calling we have is found somewhere other than in this passage. And this passage gives a specific calling to certain ones.

If you think it is important to argue me out of this thinking without actually engaging in the issue(s) that I am bringing up, that is fine. But save your breath (actually, electrons) because my hope was to consider the passage without presuming anything. Take the words that are there. Leave off the overlay of writings that Paul would later pen/dictate. Start at the center of the actual words written and work out from there. Slowly, not with a rush to conclude that what we already think is correct. We may get there. But you are too eager to shortcut the process and conclude. You constantly beg the question. You bring the conclusions into a discussion that is seeking to find the way from evidence to conclusion. A discussion that has no preconceived outcome already on the table. Or at least hopefully so.

And why would I bother going through something that you think is so obviously already correctly decided? Because we are so quick to ignore the words and insert substitute ideas as if supported. We may ultimately be right most of the time. And even when we are not right, it may be that the conclusion is actually correct, but that the way we got there is not. Our conclusion may actually be supported by some other passage, not the one currently in front of us. And simply supposing that it is long settled is the way to miss what the passage is actually trying to tell us. It may be saying something relevant that we are missing.

Or it may not. It could be that in the end, even if I am right about the focus of the passage, nothing is any different in overall terms. But that is a dangerous position to take (IMO). I fear that for every so many places that we blunder through ignoring the actual words and substituting our own thoughts (and we are ultimately alright because there are other passages that actually support our position, and other passages that bring out the thing we are missing in the immediate passage) there will be one for which we simply miss something important because we refused to reconsider.

I would like a discussion that begins with this passage — naked with respect to overlays from the writings of Paul (which came long after Jesus spoke these particular words) or any other external presumption. Once we can work around this for a little while, then (and only then) can we start to consider whether there are other passages that might shed some light on this. And they will be given the same scrutiny as the present passage. For example, simply finding a common word or phrase is not presumed to have the exact same meaning. We might actually come to a conclusion that we all like.

If you want to take on that kind of discussion, then please join in. If not, just say so and this will end. Now. No more jumping to the conclusion. No more presumptive answers. No more begging the question.

And you can presume this about anything that I bring up that seems to be (in your opinion) misreading scripture. If you want to discuss it, then let's discuss. Otherwise, just say you disagree and move on.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I now realize that there is a dense fog hovering over this discussion.

Agreed. Perhaps there is someone who has been reading these posts and has the gift of translation. If so, could you explain OBW's position as you understand it as well as why giving an example to illustrate it is a "rush to judgement"? Thanks