So is the focus to be political and National instead of seeking to disciple and baptise individuals?

Is the Churches focus in the wrong place?

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Given that you can't baptize a nation, and disciple a nation, but you do this with people OF the nations (or rather individuals OF the peoples - ethne) this assertion is ludicrous. It's a highly forced interpretation.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Mr. Snyder,

It appears to me that the decline of Christendom in missions can be traced to the shift from covenantal evangelism to individualist evangelism.

I don't frankly think that the two are at odds with each other, or mutually exclusive. However, I do think that the modern missions movement, since the early 1800's, and especially since the rise of dispensationalism, has tended to miss the national focus of missions in favor of the individual focus.

One example of a Puritan Missionary, with a focus clearly given in the Great Commission, would be John Elliot. He ministered to the Indian tribes, and taught them a biblical form of civil government as well. Here's his book on the subject:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...libraryscience

The tried and true form of evangelism that changed the barbarous tribes of the Kelts, the Angles, the Norsmen, the Tutons, the Picts and many more into Christian nations was that spelled out in the Great Commission. The rise of secularism and communism has come in those nations not discipled to observe everything Christ has commanded us.

Cheers,

Adam

__________________
Adam Brink, Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA, Pleasanton, California

"Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart: O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Antonio - The Merchant of Venice (Act 1, Scene 3)

Todd,

I was simply translating. My translation may be wrong, but the sentence Christ gave makes the direct object of the teaching and baptising to be the nations. The subject of the sentence is "You all" (2nd person plural), the verb is "Make Disciples", and the direct object is "all the nations". It is accusative, neuter, plural. As you may well know, the accusative case means that it is the direct object of the sentence, meaning that Christ told the disciples to make disciples of the nations, and then He commanded them to baptize them, and teach them to observe all that He has taught us.

I agree that the interpretation of the passage requires household baptisms, as a nation is nothing more than an overgrown household, but that is giving an interpretation rather than just translating.

If you can give some insight into the grammar of the passage, then perhaps we can discuss whose interpretation is right. However, please refrain from calling a translation a "highly forced interpretation", since I was merely translating, and it appears that you were performing the interpretation.

Cheers,

Adam

Sorry Adam, but I believe your hermeneutic is flawed. I do believe we can call upon the governing persons to repent and submit to the Authority of God. I believe the intent of the passage is that one needs to go to all εθνη (Ethnos) (not just to the Isrealites) and preach the Gospel. Governmental systems should promote the Gospel and that the governing authorities should submit to Christ as Lord but I think your grammatical stance doesn't take into consideration the context and understanding that individuals are redeemed and not political systems. Political systems can be Reformed but not redeemed. The Gospel is not the redemption of politics but the redemption of people of every Nation.

I do note that μαθητευσατε (make disciples) and διδασκοντες (teach) are different words.

I see Matthew's fulfillment of this in the following verses.

(Rev 5:9) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;


(Rev 7:9) After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
(Rev 7:10) And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

I agree that the focus on 'all nations' in the Great Commission is to be read in contrast to the previous focus of God’s religion solely on the Jewish nation. In addition, if we look at the bible example of how the apostles carried out this instruction in the book of Acts, I believe it shows the apostles did focus their evangelism on individuals or families within the various nations they went to, rather than on the nations as a whole.

Also, in Rev 5:9 which PuritanCovenanter quoted above, the redeemed praise God for redeeming them out of every … nation. Again, I see an emphasis on God saving individuals (or families) out of the nations, rather than the nations themselves.

__________________
Mark Li
International University Church
New South Wales, Australia

Mr. Snyder,

Thank you for digging into this important passage, and bringing some good thoughts for us to consider.

First, the intent of the passage ought to be judged, as you rightly point out, by the context and by what it says.

You stated "I believe the intent of the passage is that one needs to go to all εθνη (Ethnos) (not just to the Isrealites) and preach the Gospel."

Generally the intention of a particular clause can be seen by the emphasis placed in the original writing. For instance, the main verb in Matthew 28:19 will be the key for unlocking what Jesus intended to say.

The main verb in this passage is <<math-ae-tou-sah-tae>>, "make disciples". The verb, "having gone" (an aorist participle) is used to modify the main verb, "make disciples". Teaching and baptising are likewise participles used to describe the main verb. Thus, at least grammatically, making disciples is the intent of the passage, and everything else revolves around that.

It is also noteworthy that the Apostle Paul had several different methods he would employ in each locality he came to. One, go into the synagogue. Two, go to the market place (the center of philosophy, commerce and government). Three, go to the magistrates.

For instance, Paul sought to convert Sergius Paulus. He likewise sought the conversion of Felix, the ruling council of Athens, and ultimately of Caesar himself, and the Praetorian Guard.

The point I am making is not that individuals are not to be the target of evangelism, or that "politics are to be redeemed". What I'm saying, however, is that we keep the goal in mind which Christ gave us, then our evangelism will not be exclusively personal, and will reach beyond the individual to man's life in every area: self-government, church government, family government, civil government, and so forth. I think we're basically saying something very similar. Let me assure you that I don't think that this ought to decay into the social gospel. In fact, historically, it was once these methods were dropped (conversion of entire nations being the goal) THEN the social gospel became rampant.

If we take a merely personal approach to evangelism, then I believe, based on this and many other passages, than we miss one of the glories of the New Covenant: the Holy Commonwealth being for all the Gentiles, and not just for Jews any longer.

Cheers,

Adam

Usually missionaries (even Puritan missionaries like John Elliot and others) have targetted distinct ethno-linguistic groups, ethne (i.e. a distinct tongue, tribe, nation). Rev 5 seems to speak of individual ethnic groups being targetted and God's plan to redeem some from each of these ethnic groups. The modern nation states is not in view here in the Great Commission.

This is what leads modern missionaries to institute Adopt-A-People Programs and to research and target the "Least-Reached" peoples of the world.

We evangelize as we GO, but we intentionally go where none are discipled.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Pergamum,

Good point! The modern nation state is a hegelian invention.

It is interesting, however, that Dr. Livingston's vision (whom you quote) was one of total conquest of all of the nations of Africa. Conversion of each tribe on a tribal as well as individual level. Commerce, ending the slave trade, healing disease and evangelism; this was his discipleship method.

Cheers,

Adam

Yes, I love Livingstone despite his shortcomings.


And Yes, I agree about the Hegelian invention thing (though I wouldn't blame Hegel so much for it.....I am really not sure what the one MAIN factor in forming the modern nation state is....possibly the Reformation and Wars of Religion helped).

And yes I believe that missionary influence will yield societal affects. The ending of infanticide, tribal murder, and revenge killings is an aim that is dear to my heart here.


I do agree with you that individuals MIGHT not be the main focus of the Biblical texts.

The focus is, from Rev 5, tongues, tribes and nations in the origianl sense of ethne. This indicates people clusters and affinity blocs and ethnic groups, not countries - and thus we avoid any civil religon, theonomy or social gospel, but we target ethno-linguistic groups, break doen and translate the Bible into their languages and encourage local evangelists to spread the Gospel to the furthest extent of every people-group boundary.

Mark Li might be right that nations might merely mean "the gentiles," i.e., one bloc of people the goyam. But from Rev 5, it appears that nations is not one mass but many masses, many nations (ethne) that are the same as the many tongues, tribes and nations of Rev 5.

The goal of the Great Commission is towards all the world (i.e. not just the Jews), but it is also towards the uttermost parts of the earth as well and not merely the Gentiles in general, but all the Gentiles - those near and far. Thus, the Great Commission is not yet fulfilled and our focus is not merely to reach Gentiles in general (as a generic mass, the goyam) but every tongue tribe and nation of those Gentiles with the Gospel.

Pergamum,

So is it your opinion that civil religion, such as that proposed under Moses and some of the Puritans and as contained in the original Westminster Confession, and as practiced/invisioned by David Livingstone is somehow a form of the social gospel, or were you merely listing them as guilty associates? If these are part of the social gospel, then it is no gospel at all, correct?

Cheers,

Adam

hmmm...

I did not mean to say that the focus of the great commission is on a generic block of people, in fact I would generally agree with your post here.

My point was simply that when Christ used the term 'the nations' it seems to me he used it to show specifically that the gospel was now to go out to all peoples as opposed to solely the jews. He did not mean that evangelism was to be directed towards peoples as political or national entities as opposed to individuals (or families).

Mark,

It seems to me that the basic point of disagreement is that we are using a different context to interpret Matthew 28. I believe that, by comparing scripture with scripture, we may reason out what exactly Christ meant by the Great Commission. Since I have given what I understand Matthew 28 to say, let me explain what I believe the context is.

If I'm not mistaken, when the Scriptures use Jew/Israel vs. Gentile, it brings us right back to nations vs. the non-chosen in the books of Genesis - Deuteronomy. For instance, the promise to Abraham that all "families" (Gen 12:3), and all "nations" (Gen 18:18 and 22:18) would be blessed in his seed.

Contrast this with the division of the nations at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11), and the specific description God gave to the sons of Jacob:

Deut 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.


I would argue that this is the context of Matthew 28. Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise: all families and all nations would be blessed in Him. The earth will be full of the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Thus, when Jesus talks about the nations becoming His disciples, He's casting their minds back to the division of the nations, and the peculiar people being chosen, which the New Covenant gloriously alters by calling all of the Gentiles into the same relationship which once exclusively belonged to Israel.

Here are some prophecies about the New Covenant which explicitly confirm that it is actual nations (such as Israel) that would be called by Messiah:


Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. 19 In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. 20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. 21 And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it. 22 And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them. 23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.


Note well, v. 19 is parallel language to what God established in Israel: the temple with its altar and the pillar of reminder. Notice the covenant language which was once exclusively used for Israel; it is now applied to Egypt and Assyria as CIVIL BODIES POLITIC. The relationship that God once had exclusively with Israel is now had with Egypt and Assyria (representative of all nations, as the promise to Abraham and the Great Commission make clear). Calvin (volume 2 of his commentary on Isaiah, pages 68 – 84) and the “The Westminster Annotations and Commentary on the Whole Bible” (as published by SWRB; vol 4 of 6, in re) both agree that this passage refers to nations as political bodies. Calvin argues that Egypt and Assyria are chosen to represent all nations; the two worst enemies of Israel being chosen for emphasis.

If we say that God doesn't want to see all nations made into His disciples, it would appear to be the result of preconceived notions about what scripture ought to say versus what it does, in fact, say. It seems that scripture is replete with declarations by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, such as those quoted by Isaiah. I don’t believe that it is legitimate to spiritualize such texts without very good reason. Passages from Isaiah could be multiplied confirming the same thing: Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of lords, and all kings and judges must rule under Him, since all authority in heaven AND UPON THE EARTH has been given to Him.

Again, as mentioned previously, I don't take personal and national evangelism to be mutually exclusive. However, I do think that it is rebellion against the plain declarations of scripture for missionaries to confine their discipleship to individuals or even families, rather than discipling the entire nation to which they are sent.

And this brings us back to where this all began. The Solemn League & Covenant was meant to lead to such a form of national discipleship in the three kingdoms, and to lead to the fulfillment in said kingdoms of the promises given in Isaiah 19 that they would all speak with one tongue, and serve and worship God together. This was the puritan understanding, and this, by God's grace, is my understanding. I think I'm in good company.

Cheers,

Adam

Ah, so this thread is not really about evangelizing groups of people but mainly about the SL and C again?


Where is Assyria and Ephraim right now? Where are the Midianites and Cush?

Hard to evangelize these nations as nations, much like many other "nations" mentioned in the Bible if these are to be taken as present polictical entities.


Missionaries evangelize "nations" all the time.


They evangelize nations in the form of ethne, clear ethno-linguistic groups.

In fact, that is a normal practice of missions today, live among one ethne, learn that ethne's language and translate the Bible and evangelize this whole ethne. Regardless of what political country that ethne lives in. Indonesia for instance has what seems to be 127 distinct ethno-linguistic groups that still do not yet have a church established among them as a people.... let's start evangelizing those nations!

[quote=Christusregnat;433545]Mark,

It seems to me that the basic point of disagreement is that we are using a different context to interpret Matthew 28. I believe that, by comparing scripture with scripture, we may reason out what exactly Christ meant by the Great Commission. Since I have given what I understand Matthew 28 to say, let me explain what I believe the context is.

If I'm not mistaken, when the Scriptures use Jew/Israel vs. Gentile, it brings us right back to nations vs. the non-chosen in the books of Genesis - Deuteronomy. For instance, the promise to Abraham that all "families" (Gen 12:3), and all "nations" (Gen 18:18 and 22:18) would be blessed in his seed.

Contrast this with the division of the nations at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11), and the specific description God gave to the sons of Jacob:

Deut 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.


I would argue that this is the context of Matthew 28. Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise: all families and all nations would be blessed in Him. The earth will be full of the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Thus, when Jesus talks about the nations becoming His disciples, He's casting their minds back to the division of the nations, and the peculiar people being chosen, which the New Covenant gloriously alters by calling all of the Gentiles into the same relationship which once exclusively belonged to Israel.

Here are some prophecies about the New Covenant which explicitly confirm that it is actual nations (such as Israel) that would be called by Messiah:


Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. 19 In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. 20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. 21 And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it. 22 And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them. 23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.


Note well, v. 19 is parallel language to what God established in Israel: the temple with its altar and the pillar of reminder. Notice the covenant language which was once exclusively used for Israel; it is now applied to Egypt and Assyria as CIVIL BODIES POLITIC. The relationship that God once had exclusively with Israel is now had with Egypt and Assyria (representative of all nations, as the promise to Abraham and the Great Commission make clear). Calvin (volume 2 of his commentary on Isaiah, pages 68 – 84) and the “The Westminster Annotations and Commentary on the Whole Bible” (as published by SWRB; vol 4 of 6, in re) both agree that this passage refers to nations as political bodies. Calvin argues that Egypt and Assyria are chosen to represent all nations; the two worst enemies of Israel being chosen for emphasis.

If we say that God doesn't want to see all nations made into His disciples, it would appear to be the result of preconceived notions about what scripture ought to say versus what it does, in fact, say. It seems that scripture is replete with declarations by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, such as those quoted by Isaiah. I don’t believe that it is legitimate to spiritualize such texts without very good reason. Passages from Isaiah could be multiplied confirming the same thing: Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of lords, and all kings and judges must rule under Him, since all authority in heaven AND UPON THE EARTH has been given to Him.

Again, as mentioned previously, I don't take personal and national evangelism to be mutually exclusive. However, I do think that it is rebellion against the plain declarations of scripture for missionaries to confine their discipleship to individuals or even families, rather than discipling the entire nation to which they are sent.

And this brings us back to where this all began. The Solemn League & Covenant was meant to lead to such a form of national discipleship in the three kingdoms, and to lead to the fulfillment in said kingdoms of the promises given in Isaiah 19 that they would all speak with one tongue, and serve and worship God together. This was the puritan understanding, and this, by God's grace, is my understanding. I think I'm in good company.

Cheers,

Adam


I believe we have to remember that God took the Israelites and made them into a unique nation, to be a people for His name and His purposes. When God promised that, one day, Gentile nations would be united to Israel and would know the Lord, it was not that there would now be a whole group of chosen "nations" but that the nations (ethne) would be joined to the one nation - the one people of God. Peter indicates the fulfillment of that promise in 1Pet. 2:9-10: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..." In other words, the church, made up now of Jews and Gentiles who represent many different peoples, form one spiritual nation - one people of God. The Gentiles Peter is writing to were still part of a separate political entity which had not been converted to Christianity, at least at that point in history. Yet they were simultaneously part of the one true Israel of God. So, IMHO, I don't think the fulfillment of the Isa. 19 passage or other similar passages requires the conversion of any political/national entity but refers to Gentiles of the nations who are joined to the spiritual people of God.

__________________
Mike Shingler
Pastor: Steep Hollow Baptist Church (SBC)
Bryan, TX