The Original Great Commission an

The Original Great Commission and Christ’s Great Commission

Adrian A. Helleman, Department of Religious Studies, University of Jos

Amid all the controversy generated by Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, there is a scene in it that is very easily overlooked. It shows Jesus making a table that closely resembles the tables that we use today, rather than the low ones used while reclining that were common in his day. We generally do not picture Jesus making furniture, especially if it is futuristic. We know that he was a carpenter, yet in most films he is portrayed exclusively preaching and healing. Someone may well ask: “Why was Jesus doing carpentry? Was this not a waste of his time? Should he not have been doing the work for which he came into the world? The one who gave us the ‘great commission’ should heed his own command and practice what he preaches.”

To ask these questions is to miss the reason why Jesus worked as a carpenter. This was how he supported himself at first. This was also his way of fulfilling what is often called the “cultural mandate.” However, I prefer to call this mandate the “original great commission,” as I will explain later. I hope to show the relevance of this first commission for those who are committed to Christ’s “great commission,” as all of us should be. This article is intended for believers everywhere who are struggling to understand how their daily work relates to this command of Christ.

But this article is intended especially for Nigerians, some of whom use the pastorate as a means to get rich, while wrapping themselves in a cloak of spirituality by pointing to the great commission that Christ gave as the justification for their choice of a career. A proper understanding of the “original great commission” may provide a healthy corrective to the attitude displayed by these pastors. Our daily work can be meaningful, even though it has no immediate relevance to Christ’s “great commission.” This is not to imply that this “great commission” is not important. On the contrary, it is very important, but it should not be allowed to eclipse the earlier one. Both are important and need to be emphasized, but not at the expense of the other.

The Original Great Commission

The term “original great commission” is not my invention. Gordon Spykman probably used it first. Spykman explains that the “original great commission” involves “a cluster of God-given tasks, including marriage, family, nurture, daily labor, governance, learning, and worship.” It is in this context that he adds: “By our willful disobedience we reneged on this original ‘great commission’” (472). Before we proceed, it might be useful, therefore, for us to examine this “original great commission” more closely. The term “cultural mandate” is perhaps unfamiliar to some and thus it needs to be defined further. Let us begin with the latter term.

The “cultural mandate” is the first recorded Word that God addressed to humanity. History began in the Garden of Eden, when God spoke to our first parents, Adam and Eve, and gave them this mandate that is described in Genesis 1:28: “God blessed them and said to them, be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Spykman discerns three phases in the process of creation. The first is God’s primordial act of creating the universe out of nothing. This is creatio prima. The second, creatio secunda, is God’s ordering process, as described in part in Genesis. The third—and ongoing—phase in creation is creatio tertia. In this phase God mandates human beings to be his co-workers in carrying on his creative work. The original creation was good, but it was not yet perfect. When God finished creating, nothing was lacking, but the creation stood at the threshold of historical development. What God created was in a state of readiness and laden with potential. With this in mind, God enlists the services of his image-bearers as his co-workers. God calls all of us to exercise this office by continuing his work in the world. Because of this mandate, Spykman refers to us as God’s “junior partners.” He concludes: “This original mandate still stands as a direction-setting cultural signpost along the roadway of world history” (256).

The pre-lapsarian nature of this mandate does not negate its continuing validity. We are all aware that instead of taking care of the Garden properly, as God had commanded, Adam and Eve, and thus we as their descendents, have grossly misused it. With God’s blessing, we have indeed filled the earth, but we have interpreted the verb “subdue” as a license to rape God’s beautiful creation. And instead of unfolding and developing the creation for his glory, as he originally intended, we have misinterpreted the word “dominion” and developed it for our own greedy ends. As a result, today we no longer live in a garden but in an ecological disaster zone, where a privileged few in this world enjoy unparalleled wealth while billions of people barely eke out an existence. Yet, as we all know, abuse does not negate use and thus this mandate remains as valid today as when it was first uttered.

Just as a prism refracts light, so God’s Word uttered in the cultural mandate is refracted into words that govern every aspect of our existence. We must discern the words that explain how we ought to live our lives before the face of God. Spykman expresses it this way (181-82):

We hear the Word of God for marriage: God brings Adam and Eve together and instructs them to become what they are made to be, namely, bi-unitary parenting creatures. He then adds an imperative to his indicative creating act in saying, “Be fruitful and multiply.” With this is given the familial task of fostering the growth of children and nurturing them. There is also a Word of God for daily labor: “Till the soil.” We also catch the intimation of a governing task: “Oversee the garden” — alluding perhaps to the presence of an evil power, lurking along the outskirts of Eden, seeking an occasion to intrude on man’s peaceable habitat. In subtle tones Genesis also suggests what may be construed as a learning task: Adam is instructed to name the animals, each after its kind and in keeping with its nature. This sorting out process obviously falls short of scientific classification into genus and species. Yet some sort of elementary analysis and grouping procedure seems to be going on there. Finally we hear God’s Word for worship, the call to cultic fellowship, in what appears to have been Adam and Eve’s practice of walking with God in the cool of the day.

The richness and diversity of the cultural mandate is captured somewhat by these words, but they do not exhaust it. In fact, all the believers who have ever lived, or ever will live, cannot exhaust the intention of this mandate. It is more than just a description of how we can earn a living. It is, above all, an expression of our covenantal task, which is to serve God obediently and faithfully in every aspect of our lives. The cultural mandate is, therefore, as broad as all of life. It pokes its nose into every nook and cranny of our existence and asks us whether we are totally committed to God’s service. Unfortunately, the word “culture,” as it is understood by many today, is not wide enough to express this totality. The dictionary definitions are much too limited. Culture includes more than the common definitions of cultivating soil, growing bacteria, improving one’s mind, or describing the skills and arts of a people or civilization. In addition, culture is often associated, especially in the developed world, with what is sometimes called “high culture,” things like symphonic music and opera. Thus there are some serious problems with the term “culture.”

For this reason, I prefer to use the phrase, “original great commission,” even if it does not have the elegance and charm of the term “cultural mandate.” I would argue as well that the Bible is filled with many “commissions,” which God has constantly renewed and reissued. Jesus too issued numerous “commissions” during his earthly ministry, culminating finally in what is called the “great commission.” Yet long before all these commissions, God the Father in the Garden of Eden already enunciated the “original great commission.” If this had been obeyed perfectly, no other commissions would have been necessary, and certainly not the one that Jesus issued shortly before his ascension. All these commissions, including the original one, presuppose obedience: “If you love me,” says Jesus, “you will obey what I command” (John 14:15). All these commissions are covenantal in nature, even though this is no longer widely acknowledged today, when the covenant is widely assumed to begin with Noah. The word for “covenant” (berith), I concede, does not occur in the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2, but the basic elements of it are already present there, as Meredith Kline has recognized:

The mere absence of the word “covenant” from Genesis 1 and 2 does not hinder a systematic formulation of the material from these chapters in covenantal terms, just as the absence of the word “covenant” from the redemptive revelation in the latter part of Genesis 3 does not prevent systematic theology from analyzing that passage as the earliest disclosure of the “Covenant of Grace” (26).

The covenantal nature of all these commissions is important for our understanding of them. Covenants in the Bible are not contracts between two equal partners but agreements between the Creator and his creatures. Ever since the Fall, human beings are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Adam broke the covenant with God; he did not obey the “original great commission.” Christ, in contrast, did keep that covenant perfectly. As our representative, he restores us to full covenant partnership and fellowship. Now God calls us once more to live in covenant with him. The Old Testament prophets declared endlessly that covenantal living involved more than going to the Temple to offer sacrifices. Rather, it meant in the words of Micah to do justice, to love mercy, to care for the poor and needy, and to remember jubilee. Christ reiterates them. And we hear echoes of these words throughout the New Testament.

In the post-biblical era, covenant-keeping means more than faithfully preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, or even doing evangelism, as important as they all are. Keeping covenant is a full-fledged way of life that is rooted in creation, illumined by Scripture, and encompasses all human relationships and activities. At home, in church, at school, or at work, whether engaged in business, farming or politics, God summons all of us to responsible partnership. It involves a covenant in which God alone is the “Senior Partner”; we are merely the “junior partners” (Spykman 264-65).

Covenant and kingdom are inseparable. We become citizens of God’s kingdom through the covenant he makes with us. The kingdom of God is wider; it is the entire realm over which he rules, and all creatures are his regal servants. But such totalitarian claims are unacceptable in our secularized society. Many people today reject God’s omnipotence and thus they try to cut him down to size. As evangelical Christians, we also reduce his realm when we confine God’s rule to “the hearts and lives of believers.” All such truncated notions of God’s kingdom fail the test of Scripture, which is filled with unambiguous references to his sovereign rule over the entire creation (Spyman 265-66). The kingdom of God, therefore, defines both our place and task in this world. As believers, we are citizens of the kingdom of God, and thus he calls us to full-time kingdom service. There is no room in the kingdom for part-time workers. The kingdom business is not a hobby but a vocation that requires our total commitment.

The kingdom of God was central to Jesus’ preaching. Yet in much of the preaching one hears today in many parts of the world, including Nigeria, the salvation of souls, the church, missions, and personal piety seem to eclipse God’s kingdom. Millions of believers confess Jesus as Savior, yet few of them have learned what it means that Jesus is Lord, except in terms of personal morality. Unless these believers are taught to confess Jesus as Lord in every aspect of their lives and, indeed, over all of creation, corruption will forever remain a way of life for them. This is also true for us. We must make this confession too or else we will never be able to heed God’s “original great commission.” This command has not been superseded by Christ’s commission; it remains valid for every generation. Everywhere and in every age those who confess Jesus can and must fulfill this mandate that goes back to the dawn of human history.

We live not only after the Fall but also after Christ’s first coming. Jesus died on the cross to redeem the entire creation. God loved this creation so much that he sent his Son. Therefore the “cultural mandate” should not be cited as an excuse for wanton plundering of the world. Jesus is Savior and Lord, but our authority is limited and subservient. This must be expressed in earth-keeping and caretaking. God wants us to be faithful stewards, not greedy potentates. Thus we ought to treat all of God’s creatures with loving concern, and not merely as things we can exploit for our own use. This applies, in particular, to our fellow human beings, who are also created in the image of God and thus possess a creative capacity. God is the creator of every human being. The whole world is subject to him, and all of history is the realm of his redemptive activity. “God’s creation,” as the Asian theologian C.S. Song notes, “especially with regard to the developmental possibility and responsibility of its resources by man, is essentially incomplete” (38).

In the same vein, some Asian theologians have suggested creation rather than redemption or salvation should be the starting point for theology, especially in their context. Culture is an important aspect of God’s creation, but the cultural mandate should never be viewed as distinct from the evangelistic mandate that Christ gave us. Harvey Conn too objects to such a bifurcation. He prefers, instead, the term “covenant mandate.” Human beings in covenant obedience are responsible for extending the “garden of God” into the entire world that God wants to be “crowded with prophets, priests and kings unto God” (1-2). As Song explains, in culture humans translate the heavenly into the earthly. For him, the central task of mission is to be a “critique of cultures.” And he understands the continuing work of creation in terms of social and political change. God has made human beings responsible for ecology and society (Gen. 2:15) (28). In spite of widespread criticism of Song’s radical thinking, this is certainly a more inclusive concept of mission than prevails among western missiologists, who often seem to have little room in their thinking for concerns other than the salvation of people.

Christianity takes history seriously. At the dawn of history all of our present-day God-given callings were potentially present. These tasks were already waiting to unfold, like the petals of a flower. This is not the best forum to rehearse this unfolding, as it is recorded in the Bible, in detail, but we do need to understand the differentiation process that began with Cain and Abel; the former took up farming, while the latter chose herding. Yet this differentiation does not take place progressively and uniformly. Both Abraham and Moses were generalists who embodied many functions. Samuel was clothed with three offices: prophet, priest, and king. These offices were later divided—as they should be. But in the New Testament, Ananias and Caiaphas again combined the priestly and kingly offices when they sat in judgment on Christ. In the post-biblical period, we can see the problems that an unholy wedlock of church and state has created. The breakdown of Christianity in the West and the rise of secular humanism and the modern bureaucratic secular state, frustrate the yearnings we have for a truly pluralist yet unified society (cf. Spykman 277-86). Differentiation is an important part of the unfolding process. The offices and functions that we experience now have developed over millennia. Thus today we no longer expect people to be prophets, priests and kings at the same time, except to the extent that believers can mirror Christ as he fulfills all these roles perfectly.

Why then do we demand that a medical doctor, for example, ought to be an evangelist as well in order to able to fulfill Christ’s “great commission”? Does the “great commission” require this? This does not imply, of course, that medical doctors cannot be evangelists, but surely we must not insist that all of them ought to be evangelists as a condition for serving Christ. Can doctors not witness to the good news by healing people, just as Jesus did? Are doctors who stay home rather than going the mission field unfaithful, therefore, to Christ’s “great commission”?

Christ’s Great Commission

The “original great commission” given at creation now requires Christ’s great commission, where he orders his followers to go and make disciples of all nations. This command adds a redemptive emphasis to the “original commission,” which is necessary because of the Fall. Immediately after the Fall, God already promised salvation (Gen. 3:15). Because of sin we became alienated from God, and yet he came seeking us (Gen. 3:8). The Father sent his Son so that we might obey the “original commission.” Jesus made salvation available to people everywhere in the world when he commissioned his disciples—meaning everyone who has heard and accepted their message, including us. God’s call to a wider kingdom service, as this is expressed in the “original commission,” would be impossible, however, if there were no church to heed the call to make disciples. In fact, Jesus commissioned his disciples on more than one occasion during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension.

Jesus did this first when he charged them to be his witnesses to all nations (Luke 24:44-49). In a later appearance he told them: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21). In the postscript to Mark, he instructed them: “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation” (Mark 16:15). He also informed them, as we know: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20). The final commission occurs at Jesus’ ascension, when he taught them: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Each of these commissions has a distinctive emphasis, yet common to them is Christ’s command to bring the gospel message, with all its ramifications, to the whole world. That little word “all” is more important than we often realize.

Matthew’s “great commission” summarizes the essence of mission, using three terms: make disciples, baptize, and teach. We will not study each of them now, since that would take too long. As David Bosch points out, the “great commission” must be understood in the context of Matthew’s entire gospel, otherwise we do violence to this text that has been used to provide a biblical basis for mission for the last two centuries, especially in Protestant churches (1991:57). We can say that in this pericope Jesus drew on the many “commissions” recorded in the Bible and pulled all of them together. Spykman observes, “In this parting message Christ takes the “great commission that was “enunciated by his Father at the dawn of creation, and he restates it in the language of redemption for the New Testament era.” Spykman quotes H. Ridderbos, “As ‘the horizon widens,’ our Lord ‘speaks of his own unlimited authority (all power); He commits to [his disciples] an unlimited task (all nations); he assures them of an unlimited companionship (all the days)” (473, citing Ridderbos 94).

Spykman unravels each of the three points Ridderbos makes. Unlimited authority addresses the question of where the center of authority lies. Christ declares emphatically, “All authority is mine!” All struggles for earthly power are, therefore, misplaced. He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. His is “the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever.” Thus this cosmic claim also allows Christ to issue an unlimited task: “Go and make disciples of all nations.” He entrusts an “all” embracing mandate to his followers, as Spykman explains:

Its sweep includes the mission station, but also the gas station. Our Lord does not call every fisherman to become a preacher like Peter, nor every tentmaker to become a missionary like Paul, nor every doctor to become an evangelist like Luke. Within the Christian community there is ample room for fishermen, tentmakers, and doctors—and for secretaries, artists, lawyers, farmers, machinists, merchants, and journalists as well. In the unforgettable words of Kuyper, “There is not a single square inch of the entire universe of which Christ the sovereign Lord of all does not say, ‘This is mine!’” It is our obligation to honor this claim and to press it whenever and wherever possible. This calls for political discipleship, academic discipleship—in short, for all sorts of cultural discipleship. This constitutes a truly staggering agenda (473-74).

Christ does not leave us alone in pursuing this agenda. He backs up this unlimited task with his promise of an unlimited presence—“I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” This conviction, therefore, fortifies us for the task ahead (Spykman 474).

Luke’s “great commission” provides the key to his understanding of mission. Luke 4:16-21 in recent years has become fundamental, especially in conciliar and liberation theology circles, for understanding Christ’s mission and that of the church (Bosch 84). Thus the first words of Jesus’ public ministry were ones of forgiveness and healing for both the rich and the poor, and not words of wrath and destruction. We should not overlook these words, but try to connect them to Luke’s later form of the “great commission.” They provide a scope that is much wider than we often suppose, when Christ informs us, “You are witnesses of all these things” (Luke 24:48). Thus we must tell the world not only about Christ’s suffering and resurrection but also about everything that he said and did, including healing.

Paul’s understanding of mission is important as well for a proper understanding of Christ’s “great commission.” For Paul the church is an interim eschatological community into which believers are incorporated through baptism into Christ. Yet it is involved with the world and is missionary (Bosch 167f). The church is exclusive, in the sense that not everyone can be part of it, but it is not sectarian. Moreover, it is not a means of hastening the parousia, as some people suppose. Paul can only proclaim the lordship of Christ, he cannot inaugurate it (145). Thus the church is not the ultimate aim of mission. Paul’s understanding of mission is cosmic, involving the redemption of all of creation by Christ, who is the savior of the world (178).

We should examine some other texts than can shed light on mission as it comes to expression in Christ’s “great commission.” John 3:16 is perhaps the clearest expression of how the early church fathers understood mission (Bosch 339). This is how the Eastern Orthodox Churches still do even today (208). The love of God that manifests itself in kenosis is the starting point of mission not only for Christ but for his emissaries as well. They should all be motivated by the same love as Christ to go to those outside the Christian fold. Orthodox theology, in this respect, is more Johannine than Pauline: Christ did not come to take away human sin but to restore the likeness of God (but not the image, contra Bosch). Theosis, or union with God, is the term that Eastern Orthodox theology uses to express the restoration of the likeness of God and the transformation of the old person into a new creature able to enjoy eternal life. In fact, the whole creation is in the process of becoming the ekklesia, the church (Bosch 209). But the Orthodox understanding of mission is very clearly church-centered. It is, in fact, centripedal: people must come to the church rather than the church going to them.

During the medieval period, from about 600 to 1500 AD, the Catholic Church emphasized Luke 14:23: “Go to the roads and country lanes and make them come in so that my house may be full.” This mentality has been operative, implicitly or explicitly, ever since Augustine, who argued that the Donatists should be compelled to return to the Catholic fold. It has dominated missionary thinking for centuries, and elements of it persisted well into the twentieth century. If there is no salvation outside of the (Catholic) Church, as Cyprian’s famous dictum affirms, then it would clearly be to the advantage of people everywhere if they were made to join this body (Bosch 236f).

Romans 1:16f was the focus of Luther’s life and theology, and it is the “missionary text” of Protestants shortly after the Reformation (Bosch 240). In spite of claims by some scholars, both Luther and Calvin propounded an essentially missionary theology and broke completely with any idea of using force in order to Christianize people (245). There were many reasons why there was little missionary outreach in the first centuries after the Reformation, but these were largely practical not theological. Theologians at the time were divided, however, on the continuing validity of Christ’s “great commission.” The majority insisted it had been fulfilled already by the apostles and thus was no longer binding on the church (247ff), but this claim should not be interpreted as meaning they were not interested in missions at all.

The Enlightenment profoundly influenced the Protestant understanding of mission. The rise of missionary societies was a product of the Reformation principle of the office of believer. This was wedded to an optimistic view of the world and humanity generated by the Enlightenment. Several biblical texts stand out during this time: Acts 16:9—the Macedonian call, Matthew 24:14—a text popular with pre-millennialists, and John 10:10—the text of the Social Gospel. “The great commission” was widely used, but it was never the exclusive motive for mission. By the end of the nineteenth century the emphasis was on obedience. Bosch cites Abraham Kuyper, who emphasized that all mission is in obedience to God’s command (341).

The Enlightenment influenced missionary thinking extensively, as is evident in the following themes: 1. the primacy of reason—Westerners, it was assumed, were more rational than other peoples; 2. the separation between subject/object—which can be seen in the objectification of the Bible and the Christian faith; 3. an infatuation with progress—Western Christians were confident in their ability to solve every problem through the planting of (Western) churches all over the world; 4. the distinction between facts and values—some emphasized the realities of this world, while others had other-worldly concerns, stressing the salvation of souls; and, 5. the idea of the emancipated, autonomous individual, which Bosch identifies with the rapid growth of Arminianism in churches in the United States (342f). All these themes are important to have a proper understanding of many current interpretations of Christ’s “great commission.” Yet most of these interpretations were influenced, sometimes unconsciously, by the Enlightenment. Thus it is hardly surprising that fundamentalists have fought liberalism with such ferocity. Liberals and fundamentalists are closely related, and the latter have fought the former using the liberals’ own weapons.

The rise of Post-modernism has not ended the influence of the Enlightenment, which is still being felt even now. Post-modernity, however, should not be confused with Post-modernism. Post-modernity has affected the contemporary understanding of the mission of the Church. Mission is changing radically today, as Bosch observes, when he describes the elements of a new emerging ecumenical missionary paradigm (368-510). Post-modernity is thus slowly breaking the stranglehold of the Enlightenment and permitting the church to re-examine the biblical roots of mission. But others, it must be noted, urged such a re-examination long before Post-modernism came to prominence. The renewed emphasis on the kingdom of God is one example of such a re-examination. Post-modernism, in contrast, does not constitute as radical a break with the Enlightenment as some suppose. On the contrary, many forms of Post-modernism, which deny absolute truth and the value of grand narratives, reveal their secular roots and how far they have strayed from biblical thought.

The purpose of this excursion into the theology of missions is to show how throughout the centuries some biblical texts have predominated and shaped the understanding of mission, in general, and of Christ’s “great commission,” in particular. The interpretation of mission that many evangelicals have today is certainly not the only possible one. I want to present another vision, which is also evangelical, but extends much further than the salvation of souls. In the next section I want to compare the two “great commissions” and to outline how they can and should shed light on each other.

The Two Great Commissions Compared

It is strange, yet revealing, that few theologians have compared the two “great commissions.” One exception is Dr. John Boer, who is well known to many readers of this Bulletin. Missiologists, such as Roger Hedlund, do discuss both commissions, but without allowing them to interpret each other, as good biblical hermeneutics requires. Hedlund illustrates my point. In his book, The Mission of the Church in the World: A Biblical Theology, he traces the development of the concept of mission in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. He does so in diachronic fashion, yet he does not permit the various understandings of mission that he discerns to interact with each other. Instead, they are presented serially so that we can see the line of development quite clearly, but their mutual interaction is not as evident as it should be. In the first chapter he already mentions the “cultural mandate.” But he should do more than point merely out that Harvey Conn objects to a bifurcation between this mandate and the “evangelistic mandate of the New Testament” and that C.S. Song understands the continuing work of creation in terms of social and political change (Hedlund 23). Hedlund misses the opportunity to allow these commissions to shed light on each other. In my opinion his work would have improved greatly, if he had done this.

Hedlund does not refer to the “cultural mandate” again until he observes that J.M.L. Young “opts for a covenant-based theology of missions as a corrective to mission as individualistic soul-saving on the one hand and mere social action on the other extreme” (63). Young writes that God renewed the covenant redemptively by sending Christ to administer a new covenant, whose terms are stipulated in the missionary mandate of Matthew 28:16-20, and adds, “The cultural mandate and the missionary mandate are thus vitally related in the ongoing covenant of life” (Hedlund 63, citing Young 65). Hedlund acknowledges that Matthew 28 preserves a covenant form and that the covenant is relevant to culture and mission. But the rest of this section, entitled, “The Covenant and Mission,” is devoted to knowing cultures and to strategies for doing missions, while the idea of covenant is seemingly dropped (62-65).

Hedlund refers to the “cultural mandate” once more when he deals with the issue of ecology. But it is not at all clear what the connection is with mission when he writes: “Concern for the environment is predicated upon what Reformed theology calls the ‘cultural mandate’” (78). He wants to preserve God’s social concern as part of the missio Dei and avoid secularizing the gospel, but he seemingly ignores relating this concern to Christ’s “great commission.” And when he does discuss the “great commission” in a later chapter, he makes no further reference to the “cultural mandate.” This is no mere oversight on his part, I believe. He seems unable to integrate the two commissions, so that they shed light on each other and help us to understand both of them better.

Young does integrate the two commissions, but Hedlund does not take the route he suggests. Like Young, Spykman is thoroughly Reformed when he affirms their basic unity. In a section entitled “Mission Unlimited,” Spykman affirms that God has conferred exactly such a mission when he uttered the “cultural mandate.” But, he adds: “By our willful disobedience we reneged on this original ‘great commission.’” The tortured history of Israel and the Gentile nations, not to mention that of the church, testifies to this failure. We broke the covenantal vows, yet God has sent his Son to live among us and for us in order to restore to us the blessings of an obedient response. The gospels echo God’s call to renewal in the numerous commissions that Jesus issued. All these mandates are concentrated in the closing passage of Matthew’s gospel. Jesus takes all the commissions recorded in the Old Testament as well as the gospels and pulls them together in the “great commission.” As we have seen already, Christ restates the “great commission” that his Father enunciated at the dawn of creation in the language of redemption for the New Testament era (Spykman 472-73).

Christ is the only one who can keep God’s covenant perfectly. In Christ we can see what God intended when he created us in his own image. Christ alone could fulfill the “original great commission” as God intended it. Now those who are “in Christ” are once more commanded to obey this mandate. Even unbelievers must respond to it, often in disobedience, but sometimes they do so obediently, whether they are conscious of this mandate or not. Often unbelievers can be more concerned with the environment or social issues than many believers are. Sad to say, this is a poor commentary on the life of believers.

Many believers do not see the relevance of such concerns to their faith, which in many cases is expressed in individualistic terms. They call themselves “great commission” Christians. They are highly motivated to evangelize the world, but many seem unaware of how their daily work connects with this task, except to provide the funds necessary for missions. And thus it is hardly surprising that these other concerns are largely irrelevant for them. They interpret the Christian life as obedience to Christ’s “great commission” and seemingly ignore the “original great commission,” which for them has now been superseded by another commission.

The “original great commission” has not been superseded, however; it remains valid even today. Christ merely restated in his “great commission” to reflect both the reality of the Fall and the redemption he has made possible. The message of redemption through Christ must be heard by people everywhere, so that they too can be incorporated into the church. The church is the means that Christ uses to spread the good news of salvation; it is also where believers can learn how, as God’s image-bearers, to obey his “original great commission.” But Christ’s “great commission” did not abolish the “original great commission.” This “great commission” continues to provide marching orders for every believer everywhere and in every age.

After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit enables us to respond obediently to this mandate. When we are in Christ, kingdom service becomes meaningful, no matter what our task may be. Digging ditches, for example, is necessary in God’s kingdom, if only because it helps contribute to a cleaner environment. This is true of all our work. We demonstrate covenantal obedience when we perform God’s calling faithfully. He does not ask all of us to become evangelists, even though evangelists are very important. But he does command each of us to perform our work to the best of our ability. God expects nothing but the best from us, no matter what our occupation. Thus he calls us to be the best farmers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, housewives, carpenters, or whatever we are. Then, together with the Psalmist, we can pray that God will establish the works of our hands (Psalm 90:17).

Christ’s “great commission” gives additional marching orders to all believers. He possesses the necessary authority, as we have noted already: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Thus he alone can issue the command: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” He also comforts us with these words: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20). As we have seen already, after the Reformation some theologians insisted that Christ’s “great commission” had already been fulfilled by the apostles and thus was no longer binding on the church. But this is not true. This mandate will remain valid until Christ returns. Every believer must be involved, whether only through their gifts and prayers. Some will become evangelists and missionaries, but Christ does not demand this of everyone, nor should he. Otherwise, who would remain to do the other tasks in God’s kingdom?

Some Conclusions

To date God has called me to teach cross-culturally in three countries on three continents. Teaching is my way fulfilling the “original great commission.” I believe I am also fulfilling Christ’s “great commission.” My wife shares this work. Our primary assignment now at the university where we are teaching is to supervise post-graduate students. We see ourselves as academics who also happen to be missionaries. But there is nothing schizophrenic about this perception. We are fortunate in being able to integrate these two “great commissions” the way we do. Yet we quickly concede that we do not do this perfectly. Many missionaries do this integration as well, whether they are working as medical doctors, agriculturalists, social workers, teachers, or whatever. But not everyone is able to integrate these commissions; and, even if they do, they will not integrate them in the same way. God has made each of us unique. All of us are different, and we respond to the various commissions he has given us in different ways. Yet as human beings and believers God expects us to respond to each of these commissions.

By virtue of being created in the image of God, everyone must respond to the “original great commission.” Some people do so consciously, and some not; some obediently, and some not. Yet everyone must and does respond in some way. This commission is basic to being human. It was given at creation and applies to every descendent of Adam and Eve. That it has been continually abused ever since then does not detract in the least from its perpetual validity. No one, except for Christ, obeys it perfectly, and yet God still commands every human being to heed this “original great commission.”

Christ’s “great commission” is different. It requires a conscious and obedient response from all who claim to be followers of Christ. For this reason, in every age some men and women become missionaries, while others support them financially and through prayer. This mandate applies to everyone who believes in Christ and wants to be his disciple, but it does not extend to every human being, although it lays a claim on everyone who comes into its orbit and hears the gospel. This “great commission” is limited, however, and does not abrogate the original one given at creation. Yet these commissions can be integrated. What still requires further explanation now is how those who are Christ’s disciples but are not missionaries can play their rightful role in the kingdom of God. Should they feel bad because they are not trekking into the bush with their Bible in hand?

This role should not be limited to earning the money needed to fund missions, as if this were the only or even primary reason for our daily work. Then the “original great commission” becomes largely null and void. Jesus was a carpenter as well as Savior. He dignifies our labor and gives it meaning. Moreover, he teaches his disciples that he will reward their work: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done” (Matthew 16:27). But this reward is not given only to those who have been missionaries or who have supported the work of missions. It is intended, in fact, for every human being on the basis of their response to the “original great commission.” Salvation, as we know, does not come through works, and yet our daily work plays a role in the reward we receive.

Obedience to Christ involves much more than doing evangelism in fulfillment of his “great commission.” It involves every aspect of our daily life—indeed, everything we do and think, as Paul writes to the Romans: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship” (12:1). And he exhorts them further: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will” (12:2). In this way, by discerning God’s will for their lives, people begin to see the significance of their work in his kingdom. Their work, no matter how humble, is important, as long as we remain obedient to all the commissions that God has given us, including the “original great commission.”

The kingdom context is important, since we tend to overemphasize the church and neglect the kingdom. When we emphasize the church too much, it is too easy to reduce the Christian life to evangelism. The “saving of souls” then becomes the focus. We see the church as a lifeboat that rescues sinners from a sinful world and then there is little place any more for the “original great commission.” Admittedly, this is a caricature; yet many evangelicals and Pentecostals tend to understand salvation largely as conversion. They individualize salvation, which often becomes a matter of believing certain doctrines, asking Jesus for forgiveness, and offering a prayer of commitment. But now is not the appropriate time to critique this particular understanding of salvation or to introduce other understandings. Unfortunately, this is as a commonly-held view that has shaped how some North American Christians read these commissions.

Christians in the developing world have been shaped by this view as well, with unfortunate consequences for their understanding of the Christian life. Therefore, it is not so strange that African Christianity has been described by some as superficial: “a mile wide and an inch deep.” The growth of the African church in quantity, which has no parallel in the history of the church, has not been matched by an equal growth in quality. But there is still time for the latter. My intention throughout this article is not to criticize the church, but to encourage it.

Evangelicals and Pentecostals sometimes ignore the concept of discipleship, which is a major component of Christ’s “great commission.” But making disciples involves more than making converts; it also means helping people to follow the way of Jesus consciously. It requires the additional step of spiritual formation, as some traditions such as Anglicans and Catholics term it. Evangelism and spiritual formation or discipleship should never be separated. Instead, they must be closely linked. Discipleship demands devoting one’s entire life to the Lord. Jesus is not only our Savior but he is also our Lord. Thus those who confess him as Savior must also confess him as Lord. Either he is Lord of all or he is not Lord at all, as Augustine once said. If there is even one small part of our life that is not devoted to him in its entirety, then he is not truly our Lord. This is very difficult, of course, for every believer. Our daily work is included, naturally. Christ has renewed the covenant expressed in the “original great commission” and has sanctified our work. He gives it meaning, and his Spirit enables us to live obediently—not the perfect obedience of Christ, but the obedience that God graciously makes possible through his Spirit.

Spykman eloquently expresses the renewal of the “original great commission” that Christ has demonstrated in his own life and encourages in the lives of each and every believer—a renewal that took place in the past, can be experienced now already, but will be totally fulfilled in the future, when Christ returns:

We are thus creatures made to whistle spontaneously while we work—free of the curse of sin, of chronic unemployment, of environmental exploitation, of workaholic enslavement, and of an excessive craving for retirement. Free to image God in our daily tasks. Freed, too, from that false piety which seeks to negate the world for the sake of higher spiritual experience. Free to delight in our cultural mandate. Would to God it were still so! It can be so now already! And one day it will be so again, perfectly! (257)

This new emphasis on the original commission is not intended to detract from the importance of Christ’s “great commission” in the life of many Christians. That commission is crucial for the salvation of the world. It provides the marching orders for legions of believers, whether they are missionaries or not. But it is not the only commission that God has given us; there are many more commissions, starting with the original one. And, as we know well by now, Christ has taken these commissions and pulled them together into his “great commission.” He has restated the original commission and all the succeeding ones in the language of redemption. When we understand this development properly, we will no longer give undue emphasis to his “great commission” to the exclusion of all the other commissions that God has issued. This article merely tries right the balance between the commissions contained in Genesis and Matthew so that neither excludes the other. When that happens, we have a canon within the canon that makes one part of the Bible more important than other parts. God forbid that we do that.

If all believers would obey these commissions as faithfully as the Lord calls each of them to do, then not only would there be many more Christian disciples who heed Christ’s “great commission,” but people everywhere would also praise the God who mandates all his creatures who bear his image to work in his creation to the best of their ability. The more people acknowledge Christ’s Lordship, the more the kingdom of God will expand, until one day, as God himself promises, “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Habukkuk 2:14). To God alone belongs the glory!

References Cited

Bosch, David J.

1991 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Conn, H.M.

1977 “Missionary Myths about Islam.” Muslim World Pulse 6.2

Hedlund, Roger E.

1991 The Mission of the Church in the World: A Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Kline, Meredith

1968 By Oath Consigned. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Ridderbos, Herman N.

1958 Matthew’s Witness to Jesus Christ. New York: Association.

Song, C.-S.

1975 Christian Mission in Reconstruction—An Asian Analysis. Madras: Christian Literature Society.

Spykman, Gordon

1992 Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans.

Young, J.M.L.

1976 “The Place and Importance of Numerical Church Growth.” In Theological Perspectives on Church Growth, ed. H.M. Conn, 57-73. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed.