We’re all familiar with “The Great Commission” in Matthew 28:18-20. Yes, that’s right, verses 18-20 (most people leave verse 18 off, though I think that’s the most important part – but that’s something covered at length in this post). What about verses 19 and 20? What do those two verses really say? What are the implications? How do we respond to them? How do we do what it says to do? The answer to the question is simply bound up in the words that are used. But this is where we have to be careful. These are not the words I’m referring to…
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The words that I’m referring to are these…
πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ⸀βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ ⸀αἰῶνος.
WAIT! Keep reading. Let me explain!!! The Greek text is what is used to create your English translation of the New Testament. The words above are the exact ones used in the Greek text of Matthew 28:19-20.
There are four words (all of them are underlined above) that will help make sense of exactly what Jesus was telling his disciples to do. Before I tell you what they mean, let me explain what kind of words they are, and what kind they are not.
First – there is one imperative verb. An imperative verb in English would typically be a single action-word, followed by an exclamation mark like… “RUN!” or “FIGHT!” or “EAT!” Now that you see the English words near the top of the post, which one do you think is the imperative verb? Keep reading…
Second- there are three participles. Do we have participles in English? Why, YES, we do! Participles are “ing” words like “swimming” and “running” and “eating.”
So, in this text there are three participles and one imperative verb. This is the key. Whichever word is the imperative verb, that is the word that tells you what to do. Whichever words are the participles tell you how to do it. Here’s an example:
“Taking out the trash, sweeping the floor, and wiping down the counters, clean the kitchen!”
What’s the imperative verb? Yep… “CLEAN” (the kitchen)
What are the participles? You’re right… “taking, sweeping, wiping.”
Here’s another one: “Tune up the car; changing the oil, checking the plugs, replacing the distributor cap.”
The imperative verb – the thing to do is to tune up the car. The way to do it is by changing the oil, checking the plugs, and replacing the distributor cap. See? An imperative verb surrounded by participles. That’s exactly how the great commission text reads. Think you know where imperative verb is yet?
Here’s a hint. Participles (“ing” words) in Greek will, depending on who or what they refer to, end with something like “ontes” or “entes” just as our participles typically end with “ing.” As I said, there are three of these words in the great commission. Here they are…
- Poreuthentes – πορευθέντες
- Baptidzontes – βαπτίζοντες
- Didaskontes – διδάσκοντες
Now about that imperative verb; it’s the word mathayteusatay (μαθητεύσατε). If you’d care to know it’s a second-person plural imperative verb, which means that you can put the word “y’all” in front of the verb if you wish (like “y’all eat” or “y’all run! ”). Do you think you guessed which word is the verbal imperative command, and which words are the “ing” words? What is Jesus telling us to do (imperative), and how are we supposed to get it done (participles?).
I’ve heard it this way in a bunch of sermons…
- GO! (verbal imperative)
- Making disciples (participle plus a noun)
- Baptizing (participle)
- Teaching (participle)
I’ve also heard it this way…
- GO! (verbal imperative)
- MAKE DISCIPLES! (verbal imperative plus a noun)
- Baptizing (participle)
- Teaching (participle)
Okay – so how does it actually shake out in Greek? Here’s the answer:
- Going (participle)
- DISCIPLE! (verbal imperative without a noun)
- Baptizing (participle)
- Teaching (participle)
Notice that I said “without a noun”? That’s right. The Greek word is a verbal command, not a verb followed by a noun. In other words, the text does not say “make disciples” (verb/noun) like “build a house” or “grill a steak.” It does not say to verb a noun. It says simply… “DISCIPLE!” which is like saying “RUN!” or “JUMP!” In reality, you can’t “make” a disciple. You can only disciple. So, in the great commission in Matthew, disciple is not an outcome (like a product that you end up with), but it is rather a process that you are doing. The grammar is not telling us to make an object. There is no noun in the text at all. There is only a single imperative verb. Only a command. Only an action word. Only something to do. And what is it? It is “disciple!”
Okay, now how about those participles? What do they convey? There are three ideas.
Idea #1 – Going. The idea here is not “go on a mission trip” or “go somewhere.” The participle conveys a continuous action that is already happening right now, but that also continues to happen into the future. So, the idea is more like… “As you’re going along in your life.” The great commission is not a verbal command to go (stop, go back, and read that sentence again). It is a command to disciple as you are already going. Going where? Answer: everywhere.
That means that the great commission is not about going on trips to evangelize people who speak a different language, even though that is a legitimate thing to do. The “going” in the great commission is best understood as a fact that is taken for granted. It would be more like, “While you’re going through your daily routine, you, yes you – you who work there at the prison or the restaurant – as you are going along doing what you do, and going wherever you go… disciple!” That means that every person can participate in the great commission without ever going on a trip, because we’re all involved in this Greek participle “going.” We are all going through life in the every-day stuff. We all have a well worn path that we walk every day, and that is the place where we do the great commission, which is to disciple.
Idea #2 – Baptizing. The idea here is that I am to help people make a firm commitment to become a follower of Jesus Christ. How do I do that? Do I do it by sharing facts about Jesus that I ask them to agree with, and ending in sinner’s prayer? Nope! I do it baptizing them. I lead the people that I am with, as I am going along, to commit their lives to Jesus Christ, which is initially done by leading them into the public affirmation of their faith in Jesus. This is done by baptizing them. This is exactly what happens with Philip and an Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. As Philip was going, he met a man with questions about the Bible. He answered those questions with a Christ-centered answer, and then lead the man into the waters of baptism immediately. Philip was “going” and he “discipled” by “baptizing.” He helped the man to understand Jesus, and then baptized him as the affirming act of his new-found faith.
Idea #3 – Teaching. The idea here is that I am to spend the time necessary with a baptized disciple teaching them obedience to everything Jesus taught. That has two big ideas. One – I will have to teach them everything Jesus taught. Two – I will have to teach them to obey Jesus. The word teaching conveys both imparting ideas (conveying theology), and living the things I am teaching (consistent modeling).
“AHA!” you say. “But what about that part about going into all the world? Surely this is really about GOING!” No. The Greek word for world is Kosmos, and the word for Earth is Ghays. But the word here in Matthew is neither of those two words. The word here is “Ethnay” which is typically translated “gentiles.” So what is the idea? The idea is that these Jewish Christians were to disciple all of the people groups outside of their own ethnicity, and share about Jesus with every kind of person in the world, and not just keep the good-news announcement to themselves like a new jewish sect with Jesus as the leader.
The good news about Jesus is for “all ethnicities” or “every kind of human being in the world.” This has nothing to do with travelling to foreign countries (though that is fine, and was eventually done – and is still done today). This is about sharing Jesus with everyone even if (and especially if) they are not like you. That’s all. And you can do that in your own home town. No jet fuel, bus tickets, or fundraising is required. In fact, there are probably many “ethnay” (ethnic groups) in your town!
There is final important component in the Great Commission that shouldn’t be missed. In English it’s, “I am always with you until the end of the age.” What does this mean? It means that I am not on my own in the Great Commission. It is the mission-enterprise of Jesus himself, who joins me in my going, my baptizing, and my teaching as I disciple others.
You are already going along. You don’t need to go anywhere else on planet earth to fulfill the Great Commission. The street where you live, the town you live in, your work-place, and your sphere of influence are the places where you are already “going.” So, in those places… DISCIPLE! Do it by baptizing and teaching.
You are on a mission WITH Jesus, who is with you as you do what he has commanded.
Now… DISCIPLE! (you thought I was going to say GO didn’t you? Nope. You’re already doing that!).
Okay – jump into the comments below. How does this insight into the Greek grammar of Mat. 28:19-20 impact your own understanding of the Great Commission?
Sorry to sound contradictory, but I think you may be missing something. There are many ways that a participle can function. “Baptizing” and “Teaching” are generally understood as participles of means – i.e. how to make disciples. But “Going” fits every criteria for an attendant circumstance participle: it is an aorist participle preceding an aorist main verb (in this case imperative in mood).
As an attendant circumstance participle, it is coordinate with the main verb and shares its mood – i.e. imperative. To put that another way, this participle is part of the command, although greater emphasis should be placed on the main verb. To be awkward in translation to make the point: “Go! MAKE DISCIPLES! by baptizing and teaching . . .”
To add a cultural / historical point, the recipients of the Great Commission were Jewish and their initial inclination was not to go anywhere, and it took a persecution following Stephen’s death to nudge them out of Jerusalem. As Jews they were ethnocentric in their evangelism, but the great commission was intended to make them ektocentric – bringing the gospel to non-Jews (in some ways the book of Acts shows how they fulfilled the command of Matthew 28:18-20). Many believers today are very reticent to cross cultural boundaries and I suspect under-developed explanations of the Great Commission have fueled this problem.
Daniel Wallace’s Exegetical Syntax of the NT offers a good introduction to the attendant circumstance participle from page 640, with the Great Commission used as an example with explanation on p645.
I hope this is helpful. We are all students learning to understand and apply the Bible better.
AnotherStudent – Awesome! First of all, who can argue with Daniel Wallace?! Second, I don’t have that book, so I couldn’t read p. 645 – so you’re going to make me spend more money on more geeky greek stuff. Third, awesomely geeky response! Yes, “a participle of attendant circumstance typically describes an action coordinate with the finite verb in a clause”[1]. My sense from all three participles is that, along with the imperative to “disciple” they all contain strong imperative force (such as with the examples of cleaning a house or tuning up a car above). In other words, you can’t do the verb without the participles. Going, baptizing, and teaching are inseparably connected to the verbal command to disciple. As for the references to the original disciples’ ethnocentrism, who can disagree with that — or the subsequent circumstances (via persecution and the work of the Holy Spirit among the gentiles) that changed their minds? My emphasis here is definitely a push-back to the “mission trips” culture, and the the idea that “jet fuel a missionary makes.” Present-day believers often see the great commission as an imperative to buy plane tickets to foreign lands while next-door neighbors don’t know they are Jesus’ people. Underneath all the “geeky” references to the syntactical force of Greek participles (which are awesome, and which I love, and for which I will now be buying another stinkin’ book), I want to inspire the reader to disciple right where he/she is — which almost seems like a contradiction to the way Jesus was giving it to his disciples — but thankfully, the imperative verb to disciple makes that adjustment (for my “mission-trip oriented” reader reasonable (I think….). I would love to dialogue more, and I’m grateful that you added more depth to the post.
———
[1] Lukaszewski, A. L. (2007). In The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament Glossary. Logos Bible Software.
First of all, you are a geek. That has been, quite frankly, quite obvious. 🙂
Second of all, it is questionable as to whether you should say you are a Greek geek if you don’t own Wallace.
😉
I refer you all to my bio above, which clearly contains the disclaimer that I am a “wanna-be”. haha!!!
Here’s another vote for taking a closer look at the attendant circumstance participle. Happy to send you the relevant pages from Wallace if you want …
My sense is that this translation irons out the clunkyness and stays true to the participles with the primary emphasis on the verbal imperative to disciple as the central emphasis of the Great Commission…
“So, get going (πορευθέντες οὖν)! Disciple all the ethnicities, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit — teaching them to obey all the things I have commanded you.”
Dan – check out my translation at the top of the comment thread (or is the bottom now?) and see if you agree with the flow and the emphasis as my own attempt to stay true to the verbal imperative. Also email the Wallace pages to me at kennyburchard@thinktheology.org Your vote is appreciated. hahaha! But seriously, thanks! ~ KB
I sent you an email. Wallace includes Mt 28:19-20 as a “disputed example” of the attendant circumstance participle.
I like your translation (above) … I’d have to read up and think about it some more to decide if it’s the BEST translation of the great commission, but I think you’re right to offer some kickback against the overemphasis of “go!” and the under-emphasis of “disciple!” In the end, translation alone probably can’t convey the nuances of this passage — it requires exegesis and explication like you’re doing here!
Maybe we should not think of this passage strictly geographically… I wonder how much of our interpretation of this passage should also include our understanding of the nature of conversion and our kingdom theology and who Jesus was talking to? Here’s what I’m thinking. By virtue of conversion and allegiance to Jesus they had shifted from being a citizen of the “kingdom of this world” to a citizen of the “kingdom of heaven”. So in a sense they had already ventured into a foreign land, hadn’t they? Thus, it would be awkward to say “go” because they had already “gone”. Aren’t we as believers also in a foreign land? Aren’t those under the influence of the “kingdom of this world” the ones who need discipling whether in in the U.S., China, Iran, or India?
I have to agree with Kenny somewhat in this discussion. I believe the rendering of Matthew 28:19 as “GO” is wrong, and the translation is institutionally driven. We desire it to say “GO” from an institutional/denominational aspect, so we construct a rule that seems to make this translation method seamless for our institutional reasoning.
The translation “GO” is predicated on very minimal evidence that takes quite a leap of faith to embrace. I believe the liberal usage of the “Attendant Circumstance Participle”-thought process does not take into consideration some very obvious facts here. The most obvious evidence here is that Koine Greek was an inflected language. Its very nature is one of exacting communicative abilities. The prefix, the body, the suffix tells us exacting information. We are not in need of any extraneous circumstances dictating “mood” for us since mood is already built into the Greek word. In law, we use the term “Attendant Circumstance” to refer to the facts surrounding an event. It seems that some folks in the translation world has borrowed this same thought process to translate from one language to another…….for this discussion it is from Koine Greek to English. Surely, the mood of the main verb MUST dictate the translation of the inflected participle verb…….RIGHT? No, not really! Each Koine Greek word has its own specific nuance to add to the entire sentence…….that is the reason for the inflection of the language! Therefore, the entire sentence, that is the sum of all of its parts, teaches us the desires of the Master. One problem with using circumstantial evidence in translating these particular passages(Matthew 28:19-20) is that one must dismiss the precision of the inflected Koine Greek in favor of circumstances. The “Attendant Circumstance Participle Thought Process” influences and overrides the mood and the voice of the other inflected words Jesus chose with specificity. The circumstances surrounding this sentence, which compels some to favor an imperative “GO”, is only one verb out of 8 that we parse and folks are allowing this one particular imperative verb to act as the mood applicator for all of the other words, thus forcing the translation of a specifically chosen word (πορευθέντες) into something that defies its actual Greek nuances…….that Jesus chose! So, to sway the jury with the idea of an “Attendant Circumstance Participle”, one needs much more evidence than the usage of one verb. Jesus knew full well that His disciples would be dispersed, so there is no heavy burden for us to think Jesus needed to force His ethnocentric disciples out of the nest. They were going “out” whether they wanted to or not. There is no evidentiary reasons to translate the verb πορευθέντες as “GO”. I find that Jesus spoke specific words with perfection! His usage of words were perfect each time He said them and He chose His words perfectly. So, we should stand firm that when Jesus spoke a verb that was aorist, passive, participle, nominative, plural and masculine, He did this with intent and perfection to delver to His disciples and us a very specific message. Jesus could have chosen the Greek word that is second person, plural, present, middle, imperative…….Jesus could have chosen πορεύου(singular) as He used at Matthew 2:20 or the plural form of it…….but He did not!
The only portion here that we should consider the idea of “Attendant Circumstance” is the understanding of the aorist. Both πορευθέντες and μαθητευσατε are aorists. If we translate the imperative aorist, μαθητευσατε, as anything other than a simple past, then we should well consider translating the participle, πορευθέντες, in the same time component, since they are both aorists. This would certainly be a proper translation practice as we allow the attendant circumstance of the main verbs’ time translation(present, past, future) to dictate the participles’ time translation. With this practice we allow the circumstances of the main verb to influence the translation of the participle in relation to time since both are of the aorist tense, which could be a simple past or sometimes. One final fact that readers should consider here is that the verb, πορευθέντες, is in passive voice. The “going” is something that is being done to them, hence the use of passive voice versus active or middle voice. This is Jesus prophesying/hinting at the coming dispersion. Contrast this with Jesus’ usage of imperative, middle voice (active plus passive) at Matthew 2:20. Here, God is demanding that Joseph “GO” back to Israel, and the verb here tells us that God is making Joseph go back, but, also, Joseph goes back under his obedient compulsion. So, now you should see that Jesus’ use of the passive verb is to indicate how that “Going” to other ethnic groups was going to take place. Someone was going to make them go. Ethnocentric to the point of societal isolation? One simple command was not going to do it. But Roman swords would! The disciples would passively go…….meaning that someone else was the causative factor. Hence, Jesus used the passive participle correctly! Lastly, I see that Kenny is right on with his understanding of the aorist in this instance. The aorist here is a single collective whole event whose time component may, in fact, be “over time”. This time component not being specifically sequestered to a duration chosen by me, you, or anyone else, i.e., an hour, a day,, a month, a year, etc. The aorist in this instance is not specifically bound by time like the aorist in the indicative mood, which would be directly associated with the simple past. The aorist here is indicating an event that spans time without regard to continuance, momentariness, or even, exactly how much.
So, Kenny’s thoughts of “going” whenever and wherever and discipling with faith that is relational (μαθητεύσατε) is consistent with the words used by Jesus. Discipling is relational…….not institutional!…….So stands tall the words and examples of our Lord Jesus the Messiah as compulsory evidence! Going among the world out there brothers…….disciple the ethnic groups.
GO! KENNY GO!
Right on point Nigel! Excellent!
Wow! Thanks for the encouragement and more Greek-Geeking, Fungi! You’re a fun gi.
Jesus most likely was not speaking greek! just fyi. He was probably speaking in aramaic and potentially hebrew. So… The verbal inflections 🙂 probably were not present.
Also, I think that both Kenny and Fungi need to be careful. You both admit to what is really driving your interpretation of the Greek. Kenny, yours seems to be in reaction to the “go to the foreign field”, and Fungi, yours seems to be anti institutional. Glad you all are getting into the original languages. But lets not read into the text what we want. There are rules for interpretation that should govern how we read the language. It is that way in all languages. I don’t speak apart from those rules, and neither do most adults. Also, lets not suppose the prophetic idea of the participle – that ends up being quite anachronistic. thanks for the post
You are correct in saying that I seem to be non-institutional. Well. So was Jesus! The Christ-centered faith is relational…not institutional. Anything and everything that attempts to make it institutional directly conflicts with Jesus. Jesus said that upon the rock of Him being the Annointed One, He would build His citizen assembly…not a religious institution complete with heirarchy. Jesus heralded His desires for unity and that takes relationships not institutionalism complete with divisions called denominations. With that said, thanks for noticing the truth that I am willing to herald His message of unity.
I certainly do not suppose anything concerning the participle. I see what Jesus said was indeed prophetic when we translate His words correctly. There are imperative words in the Greek to use if one desires to say, “GO”. It is ridiculous to think one would use a past participle to say “GO” if one certainly has a word in his language for an imperative “GO”. The suppositions that Jesus was using a certain syntax and grammar to virtually say, “Haven’t you gone yet?” is nonsensical. Such a usage would, in deed, require an antecedent command. We tell our children to go mow the yard and then we say to them, “Haven’t you gone yet?”. They understand that our question is only rhetorical and we are saying to them, “get out there and mow that yard” (a rhetorical imperative). However, there is nothing in the text to suggest such a dialogue occurred. So, without overwhelming evidence to tinker with Jesus’ words, we should endeavor to translate them just as He said them! Let us not add to or take away as we satisfy our personal bents on pet passages.
As for Jesus speaking various languages. Certainly the Creator can speak whatever He chooses. and with great precision. To say that He was “was probably” is to say that one does not know for sure and one is only guessing with hopes of being correct. No matter the language used in each sentence Jesus spoke, the recording of what Jesus said should been seen as accurate, no matter if it was spoke in Hebrew and translated to Greek by one of the writers. I will say this: There is much evidence to show that the first century Jews, as a whole, likely did not speak Hebrew very well if at all. The educated ones did speak Hebrew to a degree, but the bridge language of Koine Greek seems to be the lingua franca of choice. We know that several of the writers quote the Septuagint. (Matthew, Paul) So, if they quote the Septuagint then one must ask “Why”. Why not quote the Masoretic text if you truly speak Hebrew. And, if you have been reading the Septuagint, then you likely cannot read or speak Hebrew, otherwise you would read your Hebrew version. So, why would Jesus speak a language that you do not readily know? Oh wait! The Koine Greek that existed when the 70 scholars penned the Septuagint is still in existence when Jesus walked the earth. And, Koine Greek was the bridge language of the day, thus many people groups would be able to hear Jesus as He spoke not just the Hebrew speakers. From the Septuagint until Jesus is less than 200 years. It is doubtful that a people group would totally abandon one language for their former native language in that time span. I have never read anything to purport the idea that the Jewish people had any program to stop using the Greek language or bastardized language in favor of their former national language that would have been consistent with the Masoretic text. It surely was used by some and has survived time to some degree with some evolutionary morphing, just not a language for the masses in that day. Let us consider Jesus’ half brother, Jacob. He wrote to the Jewish dispersion in Greek. John 20:16 is a great place to show that there was certain usage of at least two languages. Jesus calls to Mary and she replies in Hebrew. Now the text indicates Mary replying in Hebrew. Pointing out Mary’s language choice is a great place to show that Jesus called to her in another language, and it shows that the recipients of John writing were not Hebrew speakers, otherwise John would not have defined the Hebrew word for them. John 1:37-42 is another place.
Koine Greek was a solid bridge language capable of taking the Gospel message into all the earth. Koine Greek with its unique, exacting inflection qualities was a fertile language for carrying God’s message forward. We cannot say what language Jesus spoke, but we can make some educated observations if we so choose. Matthew, the Jewish tax collector quotes the Septuagint (Matthew 1:23) when he says Mary would be a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). The Hebrew text calls her a maiden. Very different words and one cannot do a slight of hand trick to say that because she was a maiden that surely she was a virgin. The Hebrew text has a word for virgin but maiden is used. Matthew says virgin which indicates he is quoting the Septuagint. Jewish tax collector quoting Greek! Shouldn’t he be using Hebrew since he certainly spoke Hebrew when collecting taxes? Are we certain Matthew spoke Hebrew now that we know he quotes a Greek translation of his Hebrew Scripture?
Rules for translation are important. I can’t wave a banner of knowing all of them. Though I will leave with this thought. I have no desire to hijack what Jesus said and change an obvious aorist participle into an imperative just because of some quite loose and debated rules. Unless there is a huge amount of evidence, we would do well to translate our Lord’s words just as He said them since HE IS THE PERFECT ONE choosing His words PERFECTLY. If our Lord chose an aorist participle when He could have used an imperative…but did not…then I am happy to let my Lord speak to me how He spoke to those guys under His tutelage.
Well, I obviously hit a nerve, and not a nerve of spirituality. I was not intending to spark an internet argument. I was glad for the two of you getting into the Greek language and I think it is healthy to express opinions as you have done.
Would you have liked it better if I told you that Jesus did NOT speak in the Greek language? (as opposed to “probably”) I strongly believe he was speaking in Aramaic. Anyhow.
In regards to the tone of your post, I would suggest a reading of James chapter 3 – you can even do it in the original languages if you like. Wisdom from above, what are the characteristics? Then look at your post and see if your post carries those characteristics.
In regards to your anti institutional-ism. I would highly suggest you study out how the denominations came to be. I think you will be very surprised to find out that the very reason we have denominations is because of the anti institutional ethos that was developed during the 16th and 17th centuries as the colonies were beginning to take shape. Jesus was not anti-institutional. He also submitted himself completely to the institution that God placed Him in. In fact, he had Paul ordain elders, and leaders in the church. He instituted “church discipline”. The governing body of believers is very important in the church as an “Institution”. However, as much as we try and say the church is all in the heart, we can never get away from the reality of it being an institution with leaders, and a body, and rules. I am quite against the abuses that have gone on in the name of “the church”. So we are probably not against one another here, but then again your tone was so harsh I felt like I needed to push back against what you were communicating, not necessarily what you were saying.
lastly, in regards to the participle. I don’t have a problem with your view of the participle. However, I think it is making something bigger than it really is. I can tell my child “Go clean your room.” or “Clean your room.” Both are equally authoritative, and both communicate the same thing. The later has the assumption in it of the child leaving my presence to “go” and clean his room. However, it is not necessary. The fact that Matthew puts the participle in there, is a non essential to the interpretation or understanding of the passage. Thanks for your strong stance on the authority of God’s Word. THAT is refreshing, but if it is not done with grace and kindness, it can hurt tremendously and come across as very proud and arrogant.
P.S. I could be completely misreading your tone. That is the danger of reading writing with no verbal inflections. 🙂 If I am, and you are walking in the Spirit while writing these posts, then please take my preaching kindly and know that I have no harsh feelings. I am actually delighted about people learning Greek and getting involved in the Church.
Greetings JP. First let me offer the love of Jesus to you and all of the readers of this discussion. I am not offended by your presentations.. I have no intent for arguments. All too often, on-line bantering gives folks anxiety as they read into the text what is assured emotions. I lean toward my British counterparts in using strong adjectives and adverbs without a bent for mean spiritedness. In our America, we are super sensitive and politically correct to the point of making every jot and tittle a point for “you hurt my feelings”. I understand this and yet I sometimes miss the mark, while offering grammar that is too strong for some to stomach. It is my responsibility to consider the recipient, and in this discussion I believe I have. I offer nothing here full of jealousy or selfish ambition. Previously, I have chosen to not engage in such banter for the reason that many people cannot get passed the “emotions thing” in email, IM, texts, etc. Folks assume a persons posturing or attitude and assumptions are always in danger of making both parties appear less than we hope for. I did use the word “ridiculous”. That word carries a lot of negative connotations in our culture. Why one can say “unreasonable”, but not “ridiculous”, I am not sure; other than for the negative tone it has assumed over time. The meaning is the same. However, since the negative is carried by some concerning that word, I should be careful not to use it and replace it with a more culturally gentle word. If thus is to what you refer, I forthwith accept your chiding. I have reviewed your suggested reading and pledge to more carefully choose my words and apply them most appropriately.
I think there is some misunderstandings in all online discussions due to the fact that we usually think in paragraphs and write in sentences. Meaning…we often lack the full discussion that can be made in person while carrying on a real relational existence. I am going to comment on a couple things. Please understand that I have no ill-will or selfish ambition here. The only way that one can have an institutional aspect of the NT is if one chooses to read from that aspect. Jesus came to tear down the institution man contrived and offer a relationship akin to the garden of eden. No hierarchy of any kind. Jesus as Lord. This is proven by His chosen words that Matthew recorded. Matthew 16:13-20. Read this in the Greek and you will see that Jesus is building His called-out, citizen assembly, not an institution. One authority and everyone else is only servants who lead His sheep as opposed to cowboys driving his herd. God desires to be in charge while servants humbly lead. No offices with officials. Just the Master as the only authority.
Concerning the participle, etc. Your line of reasoning is dim. What Jesus said cannot be equated with the idea of a rhetorical statement since, in fact, we have no antecedent imperative. So, we can’t say that Jesus is using a rhetorical statement to mean “Go” due to the lack of such antecedent imperative. What we can say is that perfect Jesus chose His words perfectly and He used a past participle, when, in fact, their are Greek words He could have chosen for an imperative. Now if Jesus spoke Aramaic, then we have a righteous obligation to assume that the Aramaic also has an equivalent aorist particle. If we do not assume that then we must assume that the Greek documents are erroneous in some fashion as they have not captured the truth of Jesus’ perfect speech. If the Scripture is truly accurate and perfect, then Jesus spoke an aorist participle in “a language” and we would do well to render perfect Jesus’ words as HE chose for us to hear them and not apply any rules, 2000 years after-the-fact, that, in our wisdom seem to have validity from our wisdom.
If you have any plausible evidence that Jesus only spoke Aramaic, then direct my research so I can learn. I will rest on the notions presented above.
As for the denominating, that started with the Edict of Milan, the Edict of Toleration by Galerius and the Edict of Thessalonica being the crown jewel. As for the rest of the centuries, there has been much wrangling and division as men has set up camps based around interpretations and self-aggrandizing. Jesus desires unity and man’s contrivances show disunity. I offer you a publication and I offer it to anyone who reads this post. The book is entitled, “Pure-Pristine-Perfect”. The author of this book goes into detail about the subject of “church” and what it means in a Biblical presentation. I will gladly send you a copy of the first edition and/or the second edition. I think the second edition will come out in 2016 with an additional chapter revolving around Matthew 16:13-20. Those are just guesses for the moment. You can send me an address via my email and I will see about getting anyone a copy sent to them. The publication is not online. The publisher only gives this book to folks that desire to read it.
Blessings to all. FYI: This will be my last post here. I normally do not engage in such and it actually robs time for other projects. I just passed through this country as I have been sojourning to other fields and forests. So, any reply comments or such here will be for the edification of others as I will not receive them through this venue. Thanks to all! And, anyone desiring a copy of the above mentioned book email me: crazy4fungi@gmail.com
Greetings,
I am doing some research on this subject, as I am writing a book about the topic of vocation, and while I do not have an understanding of Greek, I do have an understanding about foreign languages (having a degree in Spanish) and parts of speech. And while I understand the argument presented from Wallace about the potential possibility of the participle as being used for a command, it seems to me as if those who advocate the use of “go” as a command rather than a participle (which frankly goes against the plain sense of the text) are creating a false dichotomy about the matter.
One of the reasons, it appears, for the demand to translate “Go” as a command form rather than a participle is the perceived fear that, in doing this, Christians turn the Great Commission into the “Great Suggestion.” The fear has been expressed by other commentators upon this passage that making “go” into a participle rather than a command turns it into an option to “go.” To be frank, that is a nonsensical concern, and a plain reading of this verse confirms this. The Greek understanding of “go” is not one of option, but of assumption; i.e., that the apostles are actually going to go, as confirmed in later church history as they venture beyond Jerusalem to proclaim the gospel. Even if the verb “go” is “suggestive,” there is nothing suggestive about the command (and it IS a command) to make disciples. Thus, the fear that turning go into a participle (as the text makes clear) and not a command is an unfounded one.
J.Dean – You are precisely right. Understanding that Poreuthentes – πορευθέντες – is a participle, and reading it as one is both correct and helpful. Fearing that it may be seen as a suggestion neglects the reality that it is actually an assumption. “Therefore, as you are going” is a good translation. There is imperative force in the participle, just as there is in the other two (baptizing, teaching) in the sense that these are expected activities or actions that essentially connect to the verbal imperative to make disciples.
Excellent clear post that is really helpful to someone that does not understand Greek. And the comment discussions are super helpful as well. I am preparing to teach on the great commission passage this Sunday and am hoping to help our church family see that they are all commanded to MAKE DISCIPLES!
I agree with Kenny interpretation. Nonetheless Evangelism is an important component of Discipleship. Sadly many churches do Discipleship without Evangelism or placing it in low priority. It becomes spiritual discipline or formation without E. Very sad.
I am 77 years old, just a common man with a high school education. I have been dealing with “water baptism” as done in the Church of Christ for the better part of 50 years. My brother was a Church of Christ preacher. I have been told more that once that I am not going to heaven unless I am water baptized “in to Christ”. As I said; I am just a common man” and all of you have the “scholarship”. I can only judge things as I read them in the King James Bible and I see a lot that I do not agree with in the statements above. I could talk until I am blue in the face and it would make no difference. However, I would just like you to consider one thing that is evident in the world today~~~~~easily believed.
According to the latest statistics concerning world population, there are approximately 7.3 BILLION people in the world TODAY. Of that number, it is estimated that approximately 2.1 BILLION have a belief in Christianity. That includes Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and every other denomination that claim they worship the Christ.
According to Wikipedia.org, the Church of Christ in the Restoration Movement, has approximately 2.03 MILLION in membership world wide. So considering that every other movement that calls itself Christian will not have any members in heaven because they have not been water baptized “in to Christ” as you say. Also take into consideration all of your members who have strayed and lost their salvation by not obeying the gospel as you believe it. There are lots of rules (ordinances)in your movement that MUST be followed, no instruments, no kitchen, no gym etc. etc.~~~you know.
Now back to the membership; Church of Christ 2 MILLION members worldwide. The world population is 7 BILLION. What part of 7 BILLION is 2 MILLION?
The answer is >>>> 0.02657% <<<< that will be saved according to what you preach. Is that what you believe and where is the gospel in that? I see so much in the Bible that refutes that. What about those 5 BILLION PEOPLE who know nothing about Christ and him crucified?
How do you square all of that with Revelation 7:9-11(KJV)?
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;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
I realize you are very intelligent folks, but I question your wisdom when you can very well see that the WHOLE WORLD alive today are going to hell if you are right~~~~~~~~and I do not believe that is our Heavenly Father. His war is with Satan, not with man who is influenced by Satan. I would remind you that the Apostle Paul and Nicodemus both were scholars, but they failed in knowledge in the application of scripture until Jesus Christ enlightened them.
As for "water baptism" I believe that to be a Jewish thing following the instructions of Jesus. You may be interested in these scriptures John 1:33, Matthew 1:21, 2:6, 10:1-7,Mark 16:15 where the King James Bible says; "creature" not "creation". I would invite you to look and the Merriam/Webster dictionary for the many definitions of "creature". One of them being; ;one that owes existence or position to another and is therefore subject to control or undue influence : a servile dependent. Convince me that that does not describe Israel. Jesus was telling his disciples to continue going to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" and that is what they continued to do after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.
And Acts 11:19 (KJV)
19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but UNTO THE JEWS ONLY.
James 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:1 shows them doing the same thing. In fact, all of the epistles except the one given by Paul were written to Israel as you can see within the text of them.
As for required baptism, it has to be the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that is received when a person believes. Just the way that Nicodemus and his folks received it.
Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism~~~(Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13 For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Romans 11:13 (KJV) {Paul was sent to the Gentiles}
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Acts 20:24-25 24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD.
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching THE KINGDOM OF GOD, shall see my face no more.
Thank you.
My background– I am strongly influenced by my Baptist rearing and now attend (horror of horrors!) a UCC church. I have an advanced (Ph. D.) background in New Testament Studies, specifically Gos Matt, though I have been a practicing lawyer since 1998. I would suggest: 1. when people are talking about Matthew, do so– Lucke-Acts is not necessarily relevant; 2. i read this passage as offering strong support for credobaptism (commitment -> baptism); 3. Wallace’s stronger argument is the pattern in Gos Matt of aorist ptcp + aorist verb. His weakest argument imho is the “Great Commission” vs. “Great Suggestion.” Somebody above (Funci?) calls it nonsensical and i wouldn’t disagree– that is theogy-driven eisegesis; 4. this poiint will be controversial– i am, put politely, reserved about attributing any sayings to the “historical Jesus” and this passage is no exception. Whether Jesus spoke Aramaic (not Hebrew) is unlikely and irrelevant because the Gospel (and sources) was written in Greek.. The strongest proponent of an Aramaic substratum was Matthew Black, and this view has been thoroughly rejected. In any event, first century Galilee was thoroughly “hellenized.”
i appreciate very much the thoughts of the other commenters above, whether wo agreed (indeed, could agree) or not.
Hi, there, Kenny! I enjoyed your article. I wonder if you can direct me to any scholarship that does a similar deconstruction of Mt 28.19, especially in terms of unpacking the consequences for the way we enact that command in practice. Any help would be appreciated!
Ah, here we are, Dec 2017 and the topic is still being discussed. How relevant the topic. What greater purpose can one have than to DISCIPLE! – Whether you GO, TEACH, BAPTIZE or all these things. Let us all accept and assist in spreading the doctrines of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Let us all see the broader view of our responsibility and not get too caught up in the technical, geeky things.
“Every Christian…is either a missionary or an impostor.” – Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)
Excellent commments…I learned even more by reading them!