"Make Disciples of All Nations"

by Tiresias 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Tiresias

  "Meaning, of course Israelites living among all nations" (Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, p.17) (Italics mine).

  The above authors suggest that Paul was an "apostle to Israelite minorities living among non-Israelite majority populations" (p.7).

  For me, such understanding clarified a number of things that were, in effect, hiding in plain sight. Such as:

  *Why Paul's 'evangelism' was confined to Israelites and synagogues (Acts of Apostles),

  *Why Paul drew on Israel's scriptures to make his points,

  *Why he was punished by "Judaizers" who objected to his Messianic version of Judaism.

  These authors further clarify that the "weak" and "strong," "Barbarians" and "Greeks" were Israelites. The civilized, "strong," "Greek," Israelites considered the Judean Israelites to be barbarians, "weak."

  I am wondering how our interpretation of the "Great Commission" is affected by the above claims?

  Bye for now,

  T

  Reference

  Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul/Bruce J. Malina, John. J. Pilch (2006)

  Fortress Press
• 

  DNCall

  Interesting perspecitve. Thank you for sharing it.
• 

  DNCall

  Certainly makes sense too. It would be far more difficult for Paul to be an effective "apostle to the nations," i.e., gentiles, as interpreted by JWs and others.
• 

  Tiresias

  Hello DNCall,

  Thank you! A very astute observation regarding Paul's effectiveness.

  Assuming that Paul was the apostle "to Israelites living among non-Israelite peoples outside Judea" would explain why he said "from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ" when 99 % of the non-Israelite population of the regions Paul traversed fell far beyond the pale of Paul's outreach and were fully unaware of his activity" (Rom 15:19-20) (Malina and Pilch, p.7).

  T
• 

  Doug Mason

  Paul was a member of the Jewish Diaspora, and the people of Jerusalem knew him only by reputation, not by face.

  Paul and the leadership at Jerusalem (James, Cephas and John) were at loggerheads with one another. That is the reason they fought him; Paul had a "no-Law" Gospel but the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem demanded full obedience to Mosaic traditions and laws, signified through male circumcision.

  When they spoke about "all nations", they knew of the nations around the Mediterranean (meaning "middle of the earth") plus those nations involved with trade (India, etc). And Paul wrote that the Gospel (his version of it, anyway) had reached all nations. He and the rest fully expected the "end" (Coming) to take place within their own lifetime.

  There is absolutely no way that one can relate the nations that we know with the nations which existed in their times. Even modern nations such as Italy, Germany, and Iraq are very recent federations of disparate states. And to think that Paul (or Daniel or the Revelator) knew anything about USA, Russia and so on is beyond belief.

  Doug
• 

  Tiresias

  Hello Doug,

  The authors I quote suggest that the lens through which "Christians" have viewed the Bible is fundamentally out of focus. Paul was not "winning converts" to his version of "Christianity." Rather, he was announcing "a new stage in Israel's corporate history" (p.23). Israelite history was about to end. The Messiah had come and the heavenly Theocracy was near.

  Paul was not an "apostle the Gentiles." Rather, he was "the apostle to Israelites living among "the nations" outside Judea. The Judeans (mistranslated "Jews") insisted that all Israelites adopt their interpretation of the Law in order to be acceptable to God.

  Paul tells the Israelites that acceptance to their God does not hinge upon the "fulfillment of special rules or the performance of specific deeds. Israelites scattered among the nations became acceptable to God, "by showing trust and loyalty to God, who raised Jesus from the dead" (p.201). Though God's Law 'was very good, it alone was insufficient to maintain divine acceptability' (ibid.)(Italics mine).

  I would liken the enmity between Judean Israelites and Israelites of the Diaspora to the enmity between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. This would account for Paul's persecution by "Judaizers" (insisting that Israelites follow their interpretation of the Law). It also accounts for Paul's incessant appeal to the Law in his defense. Just as an appeal to the Koran has little currency among "non-believers," likewise an appeal the Law would carry no weight to non-Israelites. Nothing is more vitriolic than a disagreement based on interpretation!

  My position is that Christianity was the capstone of Judaism. There was no legitimate Christianity beyond the First Century.

  Bye for now!

  T