The Great Commission: A Forgotten Saying or a Later Forgery?

 The Great Commission: A Forgotten Saying or a Later Forgery?


The “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:16–20) is one of the most quoted Christian passages—Jesus allegedly commands his disciples to evangelize the world and baptize using a Trinitarian formula. Yet several lines of evidence from secular scholarship, textual criticism, and historical context indicate that this passage may be a late invention, added or shaped by the expanding post-70 CE church rather than the historical Jesus. What follows is a critical examination that integrates manuscript data, scholarly perspectives, and a reconstruction of what the original ending of Matthew likely looked like.


The Great Commission Contradicts Jesus in Matthew


Earlier in the same gospel, Jesus forbids a mission to Gentiles:


“Do not go to the Gentiles” (Matt 10:5–6)


“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt 15:24)



Matthew 28 abruptly reverses this to:


“Go and make disciples of all nations.”



There is no narrative explanation for such a dramatic shift. This is evidence of editorial revision, not historical memory. The simplest explanation is that Jesus never said this; Matthew’s later community invented it to justify their already-expanded Gentile mission.



The Trinitarian Baptism Formula Is Anachronistic


No 1st-century Christian text outside Matthew uses the formula:


“…baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”



Instead:


Acts always baptizes in Jesus’ name


Paul baptizes in Jesus’ name


No early writer (1 Clement, Ignatius, Didache, Barnabas, Polycarp) mentions the formula



The Trinitarian baptism formula only becomes standard in the 2nd–4th centuries, especially after the rise of proto-Trinitarian debates.


This strongly suggests that Matthew 28:19 reflects:


Later liturgical practice, inserted retroactively


Not an authentic teaching of a 1st-century apocalyptic Jewish preacher



This is why even conservative scholars recognize it as unusually “churchy” in tone.



The Early Church Doesn’t Know the Great Commission


If the risen Jesus had delivered a universal mandate, the earliest Christian writers should echo it. But they don’t.





The Great Commission is absent from:


Paul (the earliest Christian writer)


Acts (the early church’s mission history)


The Didache (early church manual)


1 Clement (Rome’s bishop writing c. 96 CE)


Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas



Not one early source writes:


“Jesus commanded us to preach to all nations.”


This silence is stunning.

The most logical conclusion: the saying didn’t exist yet.



Textual Evidence: Eusebius’ “Original” Reading


The most provocative textual evidence comes from Eusebius (early 4th century), who quotes Matthew 28:19 at least 18 times before Nicaea.


In every pre-Nicene citation, the verse appears as:


“Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.”




No Trinity.

No formula.

Shorter, simpler, more in line with early Christian practice.


Only after the Council of Nicaea (325 CE)—where Trinitarian phrasing became politically and theologically central—does Eusebius suddenly begin quoting the full Trinitarian version.


This doesn’t prove a conspiracy, but it does suggest:


A non-Trinitarian original reading circulated


The longer version reflects later doctrinal shaping


The Matthew manuscript tradition was unstable at this verse



Conybeare, Loisy, von Harnack, and other critical scholars all argued that the “in my name” version may be closer to the original.


The Ending of Matthew Reads Like Liturgy, Not History


Matthew 28:16–20 has several traits of a later church document:


Highly formal, ritualistic Greek wording


“Teach them to obey everything I commanded”—a favorite Matthean editorial theme


A Trinitarian baptism formula not used anywhere else in early Christianity


A vague, symbolic mountain setting


A compressed, sermon-like structure rather than narrative detail



Compare it to Mark’s abrupt ending or Luke’s dramatic resurrection scenes—Matthew’s ending feels polished, theological, and constructed.



Acts Contradicts the Great Commission Completely


If Jesus had commanded a worldwide mission, Acts would reflect it.


But instead:


The apostles do not go to all nations


They stay in Jerusalem for years


They baptize in Jesus’ name only


They never refer to a command from Jesus to evangelize the world


Peter is shocked when Gentiles later convert (Acts 10)



The behavior of early Christians makes no sense if Matthew 28:19 were original.

It fits perfectly, however, if the Great Commission was written after Christianity expanded and needed a divine mandate.



Scholars Who Argue the Great Commission Is Secondary


The following scholars—critical, or non-confessional—have argued that the Great Commission is late, liturgical, or heavily edited:


Günther Bornkamm – called the passage a post-resurrection church formulation


Rudolf Bultmann – classified it as non-historical tradition


Hans Conzelmann – saw it as late ecclesiastical redaction


Bart Ehrman – notes the anachronism of Trinitarian baptism


Robert Price – argues it is entirely a later invention


John Dominic Crossan – considers it an exilic church mandate, not a Jesus saying


Adolf von Harnack – pointed out the Eusebius textual issue


Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) – acknowledged the formula is not Jesus’ wording but church liturgy



Even some conservative scholars admit it is heavily shaped by the post-70 CE church’s needs.



Reconstructing the Likely Original Ending of Matthew


If we remove the later liturgical layer, the original ending probably looked more like this:


“The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped, though some doubted. And Jesus came to them.” And then… nothing more.


This fits Matthew’s general resurrection narrative pattern:


Women come to the tomb


They are told “He will meet them in Galilee”


The disciples go


They see him


The story ends



The Great Commission, especially its Trinitarian formula, appears to be an add-on giving the early church divine authorization for a global mission that the historical Jesus never envisioned.



Conclusion


From a historical standpoint, the Great Commission is best explained as:


A retroactive mission charter created by the early Gentile church


A theological justification for Christianity’s expansion


A liturgical formula shaped by later Trinitarian developments


A passage absent from the earliest Christian writings


A text with an earlier non-Trinitarian form preserved by Eusebius



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

No One Knows the Day or Hour — Matthew 24:36, the Feast of Trumpets, and the Witness of 70 AD

 No One Knows the Day or Hour — Matthew 24:36, the Feast of Trumpets, and the Witness of 70 AD When Jesus said in Matthew 24:36, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only," many have taken this to mean a far-future, end-of-the-world event. But what if this phrase had a much more specific meaning to Jesus’ Jewish audience—one tied to their festal calendar, their historical context, and even the events of 70 AD? Let’s unpack this verse and its connection to the Feast of Trumpets (Yom Teruah), the idea of two witnesses, and the prophetic imagery of Revelation 11—all pointing to a first-century fulfillment. The Feast of Trumpets and the Phrase "No One Knows the Day or Hour" The phrase “no one knows the day or the hour” was commonly associated in Jewish idiom with the Feast of Trumpets—the only festival that began on a new moon (Tishri 1). Since the new moon is difficult to predict precisely, ancient I...
Read more

Ezekiel 40

Image
INTRODUCTION Picture yourself as a Jew in the exile. You lost your home, your family, and even questioning your faith in the midst of God’s promises. You are traumatized and broken by the events that have transpired. All hope seems loss. Then Ezekiel the Priest says that you will inherit a new Temple and a new land with more responsibility added to you. More responsibility that you couldn’t fulfill the first time, which is why you are exiled in the first place. And get this, it is all invisible. This would have not gone well for Ezekiel by simply telling the Jews their inheritance was invisible. However, that’s not the case. Thankfully, our God is very descriptive about the measurements and dimensions of the Temple. We have a basis to compare the old Temple and old land to these new promises. Since the Jews were involved in the construction, they would be familiar with the size of the Temple and the land. When Ezekiel was telling the Jews about these measurements, it blew their mind...
Read more

Refuting Original Sin: A Biblical and Logical Examination

                               Refuting Original Sin: A Biblical and Logical Examination The doctrine of original sin—the idea that all humans inherit guilt and a sinful nature from Adam—has been a central teaching in much of Christian theology, particularly in Augustinian and Reformed traditions. However, a careful examination of Scripture and reason challenges this doctrine. Below, we will explore why original sin is neither a necessary nor a biblical teaching. T he Bible Teaches Personal Responsibility for Sin One of the strongest biblical arguments against original sin is the consistent teaching that individuals are responsible for their own sins, not Adam’s. Ezekiel 18:20 English Standard Version “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.” NOTE: This verse explicitly refutes the idea that guilt is inherited. Each person is judg...
Read more