Corpus-Paul

[Jeff Peterson <peterson AT austingrad.edu>]

On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 08:12 PM, Bigpond Dial-up wrote:
> As an aside, I too agree that 'mission' is not a very useful term in our discussion since it implies sending/commission. 

At the risk of playing the contrarian (too late!), could I ask those who have expressed reservations about the use of the term "mission" to clarify why the term is objectionable? Paul, the Synoptics, and John all attest a consciousness of being sent to proclaim tidings and gain adherents for a community. The Pauline evidence is especially important because (1) it's the only indubitably first-generation testimony we have; and (2) it attests not only Paul's self-understanding as an APOSTOLOS ("sent one") but also the existence of a group central to the Christian community known as the "sent ones" (APOSTOLOI, 1 Cor 15:7) and a consciousness on the part of Jerusalem authorities that they (principally Peter) had been entrusted responsibility for an APOSTOLH ("mission," no?) to the Jews (Gal 2:8).

First-century Christian mission of course has to be distinguished from later versions, but that's true of any term that's survived translation from antiquity; "conversion" is just as misleading if one doesn't bracket out the features of evangelical revivals that weren't present in first-century Christian gatherings. But that doesn't render the term useless for historical purposes, as listers' appeals to Nock's great study suggest. Nor do I see sufficient reason to give up "mission" when we set about trying to describe the Pauline churches and the other communities that Paul's letters inform us about. (Incidentally, 1 Cor 14:23ff reminds me most of Young Life, Youth for Christ, etc. Best ancient analogy I know of is Polemo, who staggered into some Stoic's lecture hall with a hangover and, hearing his dissolute life critiqued, experienced it as a delivery from vice for virtue.) 

Jeff Peterson


Jeffrey Peterson
Austin Graduate School of Theology
Austin, Texas