The Great Commission – All the Apostles???

[mark s]

Matthew 28:18-20
(18) And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.
(19) Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(20) teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen. (LITV)

Compare to . . .

1 Corinthians 1:14-18
(14) I give thanks to God that I did not baptize any one of you, except Crispus and Gaius,
(15) that not anyone should say that you were baptized in my name.
(16) And I also baptized the house of Stephanas. For the rest, I do not know if I baptized any other.
(17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to announce the gospel, not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect.
(18) For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God. (LITV)

Jesus’ disciples, before He ascended, were sent to baptize. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, was not sent to baptize.

How do we reconcile these facts?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[amessenger4god]

I've wondered about this myself.

Three thoughts:

1.) An argument could be made here for High Church apostolic succession (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican)

2.) Paul was the odd man out, rather than the Apostles, Christ specifically called Him to spread the message to the Gentiles

3.) Perhaps it comes down to duties in the Church ("...some were appointed..."), some are apostles, others teachers, prophets, etc...

I'm not saying the above three are all true, but that one or more of them may be.

[Abiding in His Word]

To me it's pretty simple....

Just as we are all disciples and should heed the words of Jesus to make other disciples and baptize them, making disciples embodies the use of our individual gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul's primary ministry was to make disciples of the Gentiles. Just as the disciples at some point realized that one area of serving was not their primary focus (Acts 6:2), so it was with Paul.

[Abiding in His Word]

Just thought I'd add.... making disciples and baptizing wasn't the only thing the disciples were called to do. Jesus also told them to heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, etc. I think as disciples, we do what the situation demands using the appropriate gift, all the while keeping our focus on our primary ministry.

I also thought of Martha and Mary and the way Jesus brought back the issue of primary importance to the one who was so distracted by so many other things.

Paul's primary ministry was to the Gentiles (Galations 2:7), and while he was sidetracked often by the Pharisees, he remained faithful to his calling.

[plalgum]

Hi Mark,
If you read the the verses before you can see through the context that the new believers were tending to follow the ones that were baptizing them.


1 cor 11-12
brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."


Im so glad that our Lord did not edit out these testimonies to our failing humanity.

Laz.

[mark s]

Paul says that Jesus did not send him to baptize, not even as a "secondary ministry". If it was at all included in what Paul was supposed to do, that is, preach the gospel, and, as you have occasion to, baptize, then why would Paul say that he was glad he didn't baptize any of them?

It's not that Paul considered baptizing a "secondary" calling, he said that he was not sent to baptize, and he's glad he didn't baptize, at least, he only baptized a few.

Are all instructions given by Jesus to everyone at all times meant for everyone at all times?

I'd say, of course not!

Was Paul's primary ministry to "make disciples", or "preach the gospel"?

A fourth possibility, not listed above, is that something changed between the sending out of the original apostles, and Paul being sent out.

Perhaps the original apostles, those who had been Jesus' disciples, were told something that Paul was not told.

Personally, this is what makes the most sense to me, and provides the easiest fit to the simplest reading of Scripture.

The original apostles were told to baptize, while Paul was not.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Abiding in His Word]

Perhaps the original apostles, those who had been Jesus' disciples, were told something that Paul was not told.

Personally, this is what makes the most sense to me, and provides the easiest fit to the simplest reading of Scripture.

The original apostles were told to baptize, while Paul was not.

But he did baptize, didn't he? So are you saying Paul did something he was not supposed to do?

[mark s]

Paul did baptize, and Paul was not sent to baptize. I don't see anywhere in Scripture that he was prohibited from baptizing.

So no, I am not saying that he was violating anything.

Even so, he makes a point of saying that he was not sent to baptize, meanwhile, Jesus made a point of sending the original apostles to baptize.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Abiding in His Word]

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing except I believe all believers are called to make disciples, preach the good news, heal the sick, baptize in the name of Jesus, etc. as the Holy Spirit leads. I believe that Jesus told the disciples because they were His first followers - not His only followers. We are disciples as well and the same commissions are ours just as the entire Bible is for our instruction individually as well as collectively.

[mark s]

I have no disagreement that if the Holy Spirit instructs you to baptize, then that is what you should do.

I have no reason to think that Paul was in violation of anything by baptizing, I can simply assume that he was being Spirit-led, and, if not, that is between him and God.

However . . .

If Jesus' commission, "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them . . ." was intended to apply to all believers, then how is it Paul says, "I was not sent to baptize"?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Abiding in His Word]

If Jesus' commission, "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them . . ." was intended to apply to all believers, then how is it Paul says, "I was not sent to baptize"?

It was not his primary ministry; not his focus. But that did not preclude his baptizing when so led by the Holy Spirit. Jesus also stated "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" but that did not preclude other ministry. No one has one purpose to the exclusion of others. We are to be multi-faceted believers.

Again, the Bible is full of "firsts." The apostles were the first followers of Jesus; Paul was the first ambassador to the Gentiles; the 120 in the upper room were the first to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc.

[Mark F]

Matthew 28:18-20
(18) And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.
(19) Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(20) teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen. (LITV)

Compare to . . .

1 Corinthians 1:14-18
(14) I give thanks to God that I did not baptize any one of you, except Crispus and Gaius,
(15) that not anyone should say that you were baptized in my name.
(16) And I also baptized the house of Stephanas. For the rest, I do not know if I baptized any other.
(17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to announce the gospel, not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect.
(18) For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God. (LITV)

Jesus’ disciples, before He ascended, were sent to baptize. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, was not sent to baptize.

How do we reconcile these facts?

Love in Christ,
Mark

I highlighted in your quote some of what Jesus said as well.

IMO, I think that we lack in the doing part, not for salvation, but because of. I find it hard to spot a Christian in my everyday life, I need to start being a more noticable Christian. Pray for me.

[tharkun]

I have to agree with Abiding here, it seems the difference is between a general instruction given to the disciples and a specific instruction given to Paul. It's not that Paul was not ever supposed to baptize; if that were so, we would know him to have sinned because we know that he did in fact baptize some people. But the Lord Jesus gave Paul a specific calling and ministry to the Gentiles, should we then suppose that Paul did no other good works other than preach the gospel? We know that Paul not only spread the gospel but then instructed in practical Christian living and church administration (see, oh, any of the epistles! ). Does this mean he was violating his specific instruction to reach the gentiles? I don't thnk so. Clearly, the Lord can and does direct individuals to specific areas of ministry and often that means giving up others to remain in His will. I myself can testify to this.

tharkun

[Keeping Alert]

Matthew 28:18-20
(18) And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.
(19) Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(20) teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen. (LITV)

Compare to . . .

1 Corinthians 1:14-18
(14) I give thanks to God that I did not baptize any one of you, except Crispus and Gaius,
(15) that not anyone should say that you were baptized in my name.
(16) And I also baptized the house of Stephanas. For the rest, I do not know if I baptized any other.
(17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to announce the gospel, not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect.
(18) For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God. (LITV)

Jesus’ disciples, before He ascended, were sent to baptize. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, was not sent to baptize.

How do we reconcile these facts?

Love in Christ,
Mark

I highlighted in your quote some of what Jesus said as well.

IMO, I think that we lack in the doing part, not for salvation, but because of. I find it hard to spot a Christian in my everyday life, I need to start being a more noticable Christian. Pray for me.

Pray for me too.

[mark s]

it seems the difference is between a general instruction given to the disciples and a specific instruction given to Paul.

Hi tharkun,

In your understanding that Jesus' gave "a general instruction" to "the disciples" in this "great commission", do you view that instruction as being given to all believers, or just those certain disciples that were there at the time?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[tharkun]

it seems the difference is between a general instruction given to the disciples and a specific instruction given to Paul.

Hi tharkun,

In your understanding that Jesus' gave "a general instruction" to "the disciples" in this "great commission", do you view that instruction as being given to all believers, or just those certain disciples that were there at the time?

Love in Christ,
Mark

Mark,

I would say that it was a direct instruction to the disciples with universal application to the church. If they were to instruct in "all things" Jesus taught them, that necessarily includes His instruction in discipling new believers and training them in the same. Therefore, if the commandment was obeyed by the disciples, they would have included this teaching in their instruction.


tharkun

[mark s]

Hi tharkun,

Then wouldn't it make sense to say that if all believers are sent by Jesus to baptize, then Paul was also sent by Jesus to baptize?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[tharkun]

Hi tharkun,

Then wouldn't it make sense to say that if all believers are sent by Jesus to baptize, then Paul was also sent by Jesus to baptize?

Love in Christ,
Mark

In the general sense, yes; and we know that he did in fact baptize some people. However, Paul was apparently given a more specific revelation at some point to focus on spreading the gospel and not be concerned with baptisms. (I say 'apparently' because there was obviously a change at some point) Does this make his prior baptisms a sin? Of course not, anymore than someone who leaves his corporate job for seminary sins, even though he felt God led him to both. It's all about being obedient in the present with the revelation that you have at the time. There's only a contradiction if we try to force an absolute application at the same time in the same sense on Paul. That's why I feel it is wise to distinguish between a general revelation given to the infant church (in the Great Commission) and the specific instruction given to Paul. Paul doesn't then instruct the church to be as he is in this manner; therefore he was speaking of only God's will for his personal ministry.


tharkun

[mark s]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Paul's baptizing some people was sin.

I'm just noticing that Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize. This says to me that Paul did not consider the "great commission" to be specifically to him.

Was there a "change at some point"? Is there an indication that Paul was previously sent to baptize? He could baptize people without having been sent to do that, couldn't he?

There is a tendency among many people today to erase distinctions within Scripture. I think this is a big part of what Paul meant when he talked about "rightly dividing" the Word.

Here is an easy example of a place where a great many people assume that the instruction given was given to all believers of all time (the great commission), and yet Paul wrote contrary to that view.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[tharkun]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Paul's baptizing some people was sin.

I'm just noticing that Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize. This says to me that Paul did not consider the "great commission" to be specifically to him.

Was there a "change at some point"? Is there an indication that Paul was previously sent to baptize? He could baptize people without having been sent to do that, couldn't he?

There is a tendency among many people today to erase distinctions within Scripture. I think this is a big part of what Paul meant when he talked about "rightly dividing" the Word.

Here is an easy example of a place where a great many people assume that the instruction given was given to all believers of all time (the great commission), and yet Paul wrote contrary to that view.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Just to be clear (from me) I did not mean to suggest that you were saying Paul was sinning. I was attempting to point out that both instructions could not be true at the same time and in the same sense. If they were, we would be facing a contradiction in scripture or we put Paul in a no-win scenario (and hence, disobeying one command or the other; i.e. sinning).

I fully agree with your statement on rightly dividing; and that's why I feel it is necessary to distinguish between the general instruction and the specific. We know that Paul did in fact baptize some people into the faith. Presumably, he was aware of this practice through either the teachings and example of the apostles or through His direct revelation with Christ. Since he writes that Christ did not send him to baptize, I conclude that he learned of it from the apostles.

This, however, means that they apostles were carrying out the GC and teaching others to do the same. Therefore, it lends credence to the idea that the GC is for all believers. Paul did not need to be "sent" with the GC; the original 11 were "sent" in that sense; but they were also "sent" to teach others the same things they had been taught. This must include this final instruction or else they are not teaching "everything" Christ had commanded.

I don't think you can necessarily conclude that Paul did not apply the GC to himself; rather, only that he received a direct calling that superceded the general calling.

For me, it is not a matter of an assumption that the GC is for all believers; it is a logical deduction based on the instruction to teach "all things". Further, there is tone of the language itself. Paul's instruction is for him to be set apart for the gospel - clearly a personal duty placed on him by Christ. I don't think it necessary to therefore exclude the GC in his life; he can perform other "Christian" works and not be specially "set apart" to do them. Just as I can share the gospel without being "called" to do so in full-time ministry. The language of the GC is more of "as you go" type language. IOW, live your lives and do these things as you do so.

I don't agree that Paul was writing contrary to the GC. He wasn't instructing anyone to go against the GC (and therefore contradicting Christ's instruction). Rather, he was relating his personal calling in order to make the point that the person who baptized the Corinthians was irrelevant because all were baptized into Christ. He clearly did obey the GC because he baptized some (and taught other things as well); but he was not set-apart for those things.

Finally, Christ's own words imply a universal application to me when he ends the GC with the statement, "...I am with you, always, even to the end of the world."