Postresurrection Teaching about a Gentile Mission
Postresurrection Teaching about a Gentile Mission
Whatever we may say of Jesus’ preresurrection teaching, Matthew (Matt 28:19) and Luke (Lk 24:47-48; Acts 1:8) apparently independently (and later Mk 16:15, perhaps derivatively) specifically report a more explicit commissioning to the nations after Jesus’ resurrection. John also includes a postresurrection commission, although not explicitly to the nations.19 One might suppose that the Pauline movement simply inferred the gentile mission from the combination of factors noted above. But would this explain other sectors of early Christianity embracing the mission, and Matthew and Luke both attributing it to Jesus after the resurrection?
Rather than assuming that Paul originated the idea and all other parts of the Christian movement got the idea from him, tracing the idea in some form to the figure behind the movement more easily explains the range of evidence (e.g., Matthew is not very “Pauline”). Some doubt that the commission in the Gospels stems from the risen Jesus,20 but others think that even Matthew’s commission is authentic,21 although most would view it as heavily edited to emphasize the focal themes of his Gospel.22 Even if one were to view it as merely inference, it would be an inference that depended on Jesus’ teaching and the experience of the resurrection.
One argument against Jesus teaching about the Gentile mission, whether before or after the resurrection, is that it seems difficult to explain why his immediate followers in Acts took so long to catch (or at least, to implement) this vision. Acts is not, however, unintelligible on its own terms. The disciples’ slowness to implement the teaching may partly involve misunderstanding; at first reading Isaiah differently, perhaps they expected the Gentiles to stream into Jerusalem, where the apostles were establishing an alternate kingdom. Perhaps they thought that any further mission was best deferred until they had established firmer foundations in Jerusalem. We do not need to look far for analogies to diverse understandings of implementing the commission; much of the church through much of subsequent history (e.g., most Protestants in the two centuries immediately following the Reformation) has given little heed to a commission to the nations, yet no one can argue that the commission was largely unknown.
What none of our sources about Jesus’ teaching on Gentiles provide is a Gentile mission conducted along the specific lines of the Pauline mission, i.e., without circumcision.23 While some of Jesus’ followers may have retroactively found hints in Jesus’ teaching (cf. Mk 7:15, 19, for food laws), the Gospels are not able to report anything about embracing uncircumcised Gentiles, much as some of the writers may have wished to.24 In Acts, Luke appeals to Scripture (Acts 15:15-18) but especially to apostolic revelation (9:15; 11:9, 12, 15-17; 15:7-10; 22:21) through the Spirit that Jesus sent. Even the Pauline mission differed from later Gentile Christianity;25 we need not account for every detail of the church’s subsequent development in Jesus’ teaching. Nevertheless, it is likely that something Jesus taught disposed many of his followers in this direction.26 Because he did not historically address particulars like circumcision, however, they became matters of significant debate in the decades that followed.