THE GREAT COMMISSION AS CREATIONAL RESTORATIVE COVENANT
Cory Wilson
Ø
the
pastor of
Ø
Ph.D.
candidate in Intercultural Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary
Ø
served
as an ethnographic researcher and church planter in
Published in “Featured Articles” section www.globalmissiology.org October 2010
The final chapter of the each of the synoptic gospels records a version
of what is known as the Great Commission - a command by Jesus to his followers
to make disciples of all the nations of the world. This paper will explore the
foundation for Jesus’ command to his disciples. An alternative phrase that
better reflects the whole of the Biblical narrative will be offered. This new terminology will be rooted in
the fact that the Great Commission finds its origins, not in the New Testament
or the Abrahamic covenant, but in the creation account as recorded in the opening
chapters of Genesis. It will be
shown that the eternal purposes of God are clearly set forth in the creation
account and that the unfolding of the Biblical revelation shows God’s active
role in restoring the creational design norms[1] that
were corrupted following the Fall. In light of this, the creation account
serves as a foundation for interpreting not only the Great Commission, but all
of Scripture.
As previously mentioned, each of the synoptic gospels includes a form of what is generally referred to as the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:15-16; Lk 24:44-49). The most often used and quoted is found Mt 28:18-20 where Jesus says,
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given
to
me. 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. (ESV)
Jesus’ commission to the apostles and the church is strong. His followers are to make disciples. They are to do this by going to the nations, baptizing, and teaching all that Christ has commanded. Although this command seems clear enough to most evangelicals today, it has not always been understood in this way by conservative Protestants. Some throughout church history did not interpret Jesus’ commission to the apostles as normative for their time. William Carey proved instrumental in changing this line of thought. With his publication of An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens in 1792, Carey became one of the first in the English speaking world to lay out a Biblical foundation for the church’s missionary mandate[2]. In his work, Carey dealt solely with the aforementioned Matthew passage in laying out his argument. Although it is agreed that Carey’s interpretation and argument from the passage is correct, he failed to provide an argument reflecting the grand narrative of the Scriptures. Carey even seems to suggest that without Christ’s Commission there is no warrant for missions when he writes, “If the command of Christ to teach all nations be confined to the apostles, then all such ordinary ministers who have endeavoured to carry the gospel to the heathens, have acted without a warrant, and run before they were sent.”[3] Christopher Wright points out that Carey’s shortcomings are continually displayed today by many who explore and argue for Biblical foundations for mission. Wright warns against using isolated passages in this way.
These
texts may indeed sparkle, but simply laying out
such
gems on a string is not yet what one could call a
missiological
hermeneutic of the whole Bible itself.
It
does not even provide whole-Bible grounding for
mission”
(Wright 2006, 36).
Thus what is needed are not isolated proof texts that
support the work of mission, but a comprehensive biblical theology that takes
into consideration the whole of biblical revelation: God’s creational design norms, the
effects of the fall against those norms, and God’s redemptive action to restore
those norms as revealed in His Word.
The use of the term Great Commission fails in communicating the
comprehensive message of Jesus’ command in the Gospels. This is not to suggest that Jesus’ words
are not great or that they are not a commission. However, the use of the term, which
arose after Carey’s publication, has given rise to Mt 28:19-20 serving as a
proof text for modern missions. The implications of using Mt 28:19-20 in this
way is that if the passage was taken out of the Bible the whole foundation for
missions would come crumbling down. The term great suggests that the command is supreme to other commands in
Scripture. However, Christ has reserved that usage for a different command (Mt
Those who seek to take into account the Great Commission in the context
of the entire Bible, often find the foundational roots of Jesus’ command in the
Abrahamic blessing and covenant that is first recorded in Gn 12:1-3. Walter Kaiser writes that the Abrahamic
covenant “is foundational to the missionary vision of the whole Bible and the
people of God through all the ages.”[4] In addition Wright refers to Gn
12:1-3 as “the original great commission”[5] and “the
biblical foundation on which the text in Matthew [Great Commission] is based.”[6] The
connection Kaiser and Wright make between the Abrahamic covenant and the Great
Commission is not wrong. It simply
fails to recognize that the foundation
of the missionary vision is rooted in the creation account, not the Abrahamic
covenant. The Abrahamic covenant
should be seen as the promise of
creational restoration; and Jesus’ commission in the gospel of Matthew then
serves as the initialization of the
creational restorative process. For
this reason, it is suggested that the use of the term Great Commission in
regard to Jesus’ command be replaced with Creational
Restorative Covenant[7]
- a covenant set in place to put into action the process of restoring the
creation to fulfill its original purpose for existence. Although Wright fails to see creation as
the foundation for Jesus’ commission, he does state that, “God’s mission is to
restore creation to its full original purpose.”[8] The
exact nature of the original purpose for existence will now be examined.
The foundation for the creational design norm can be seen in the
connection between Gn 1:26-28 and Gn 2:15-22. Attention will first be given to
the latter passage. The second chapter of Genesis gives additional details of
the creation of man that is not given in chapter one. Man is formed from the dust of the earth
and given life (verse 7). He is
then put in the Garden of Eden. The
“placing” of man in the garden is conveyed in Gn. 2:8 and
Both
senses of the term appear to lie behind the
author’s
use the word in v.15. Man was “put”
into
the
garden where he could “rest” and be “safe,” and
man
was “put” into the garden “in God’s presence”
where
he could have fellowship with God.[10]
The use of “placed” in verse 15 carries with it a sense of
not only rest, but also purpose.
Within the fulfilling of his purpose, man was to find rest and safety in
his Creator. It was intended to be
rest and safety that could not could not be obtained elsewhere. In his purpose for existence man was to
find rest and safety. The exact
nature of that purpose will now be examined.
The purpose given in Gn
The first is in relation to Gn 3:23. In this verse, part of the curse of the
fall is that man must now leave the garden “to work the ground from which he
was taken”. Although the root word
for “work” (עבד) in Gn
A second argument is based on a difficulty in the Hebrew Masoretic Text
that goes unnoticed in English translations. The “it” in “work it” and “keep it” in
English translations is feminine in the Hebrew. The feminine pronoun is meant to refer
back to “garden” (גן). However, “garden” is a masculine noun in
Hebrew. The difficulty, therefore,
lies in the fact that the Hebrew text has a feminine pronoun that references
back to a masculine noun.[13] The
Septuagint seeks to smooth over this difficulty by changing the pronoun from a
feminine singular to a masculine singular (evrga,zesqai
auvto.n kai. fula,ssein).
This change, however, does not solve the problem that exists in the Masoretic
Text. Although it is beyond the
scope of this paper to offer all
possible solutions to the problem, one
will be offered. By simply removing
the Mappiq in the final constant of Hr"(m.v'l.W Hd"Þb.['l, the feminine
pronoun is removed and “to serve and to obey” easily lies within the semantic
range of the Hebrew words.[14] Since vowel and pronoun pointings were
added at a later date[15] than
the final formation of the inspired Hebrew canon, this possibility is not
beyond reason. Admittedly, this
suggestion is not without its own difficulties. It does however, seek to address and not
ignore the current problems present in the text.
A final point of support for the alternate translation can be seen in
the connection between the immediate Genesis narrative and the theology of the
Pentateuch as a whole. In the
immediate context, verse 15 is followed in verses 16-17 by a specific command
from God to man to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. This command by God to obey
flows naturally out of an understanding that Gn
In
regard to the larger context of the theology of the Pentateuch, the two root
words of “to serve and to obey” ( שםר and עבד) are key aspects of the narrative strategy of the author of the
Pentateuch. This can is displayed in how the purpose of the nation of
This lays the foundation for God’s deliverance of the Israelites. God, who clearly set forth His design
norm in creation, will now seek to restore His people to fulfill that design
norm. God’s reason for delivering
the nation of
Once the above serving purpose is established, the author of the
Pentateuch immediately begins portraying the second aspect of the Gn 2:15
design norm, which is “to obey.” In
Ex
Thus, part of the theology of the Pentateuch can be seen in God’s desire
to bring restoration to the design norm.
Man was created to serve and obey the Creator in rest and safety in the
prepared land of the creation account. The fall brought destruction to this
purpose. Throughout the Pentateuch God is actively seeking to bring restoration
to this design norm as He delivers the Hebrews that they may serve and obey in
Him in land where they will find rest and safety.
It has been shown that following the creation of man in Gn 2:7, God
placed him in the garden to serve and obey. The role of the woman in relation to
this design norm will now be addressed.
Following man’s purposeful placement in the garden, God comments for the
first time in the creation account that something is “not good” (
The first is the very nature of the perfect creation. Sin’s corruptive forces have yet to
distort man’s relationship with God; therefore, Adam was enjoying the fullness
of joy that comes with uncorrupted communion with God (Ps
A second reason is found in an analysis of the same use of the form of
the word “alone” (לבדו) throughout the rest
of the Old Testament. Other than Gn 2:18, this form of alone can be found in
thirty-five locations.[18] None of
the additional uses of the word carry any sense of loneliness in relation to an
emotional state. In every other usage the word carries the idea of either being
separated from something or someone (Gn 30:40) or it is used to emphasize the
uniqueness of someone in comparison to another (2 Sm 13:32; Ps 72:18). The latter example is most likely the
meaning meant in Gn 2:18. Man was
alone in the sense that he was unique and distinguished from the rest of God’s
creation.
The final reason offered against Kaiser’s interpretation is that God’s
solution to man being “alone” was to create a “helper corresponding to him” (AD*g>n<K. rz<[E)(Gn
is
not to find a companion to stop him [Adam] feeling
lonely
but to find a helper to stand alongside him in
this
huge task laid upon him as the servant, keeper,
filler,
subduer and ruler of creation. The
man does
not
need company. He needs . . . mutual
help in
carrying
out the creation mandate entrusted to
humanity.[19]
Thus “alone” conveys that man was alone in his unique and distinguished state and was in need of a helpmate, an equal partner, corresponding to his likeness and purpose.
The intentions, therefore, of Gn 2:15-22 is to lay the foundation for the specific purpose of the existence of man and woman. In these verses the author specifically addresses the proper inward function of humanity. They are God’s unique and distinguished creations that bear His image. They exist not for themselves, but to serve and obey their Creator while enjoying the rest and safety of dwelling under His care in the Garden of Eden.
It has been shown that one aspect of the design norm for mankind is to
serve and to obey and that this particular addresses the proper inward function
of Adam and Eve. However, this is
not the only instruction that was given to man and woman in the creation
account. An additional aspect of
the design norm, which focuses more on outward function, is seen in Gn 1:28. In
this account of the creation, man and woman are created in God’s image (Gn
Be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue
it
and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over
the
birds of the heavens and over every living thing
that
moves on the earth. (ESV)
God’s
new creation was to multiply in order to fill and subdue the earth; thus
exercising dominion over all of God’s creation. The exact meaning of this
blessing must be understood in connection with Gn. 2:15. Wright makes this
connection and declares that, “The care and keeping of creation is our human
mission.”[20]
Because Wright takes Gn
When Gn 2:15-22 is understood as conveying the design norm of man and woman existing together for the purpose of serving and obeying the Creator, it brings new light to the magnitude of the blessing of Gn 1:28. Considering this connection, Mark Leiderbach writes,
[God] specified the purpose of living life before him as a joyous journey of worship and commissioned the first couple to fill the earth with worshippers! The very reason for humanity’s existence in a perfect garden was to bring glory of God and spread that glory to the uttermost parts of creation.[23]
Man
is not to simply multiply; he is to multiply offspring that serve and obey the
Creator. Man is not to simply fill the earth; he is to fill the earth with
servers and obeyers. Man is not to simply subdue the earth and exercise
dominion over it; he is to do it as an act of service/worship and obedience to
his Lord. In this way proper outward function, along with proper inward
function can be accomplished. Although the design norm includes all aspects of
the care of creation and the development of civilization, this is not the
ultimate reason for man’s existence. The reason is to fill the earth with those
that know the Creator, love the Creator, exalt the Creator, serve Creator, and
obey the Creator.
It is at this point that the design norm can be understood as a covenant
between God the Creator and Adam his creation that focuses on inward and
outward function. The blessing that
God gives to Adam and Eve is covenantal in its structure. Adam is to serve and
obey his creator (inward function) and to fill the earth (outward function)
with those who do likewise in caring for creation and developing civilization.
Obedience to this covenant will bring blessing, life, and rest; while
disobedience promises death (Gn
The
Great King blesses Adam, his vassal, with the
responsibility
of covenant obedience in the world, the
arena
of covenant response. The earth is
to be full
of
the knowers of God, as the waters cover the sea
(Isa.
11:9). Man is to extend the
covenant territory,
“the
boundaries
of the whole earth.[25]
Through the design norm, God established the Creational Covenant with Adam; and thus the entirety of mankind. However, Adam transgressed this covenant (Hos 6:7), and the results are devastating. Not only was the Creational Covenant transgressed against, the effects of the transgression shattered any possibility of Adam’s offspring faithfully keeping the covenant. The transgression of the covenant was not isolated, but “an event of catastrophic significance for creation as a whole.”[26] The effects reach every aspect of God’s creation. That which was “very good” is now infected with the disastrous effects of sin.
This lays a foundation for understanding each of the major
manifestations of the covenant of grace between God and Noah, Abraham, and
David.[27] The
covenant with Noah (Gn 9) repeats much of the same language of Gn 1:28. It is
clear from this that, despite the Fall, God’s purpose for humanity has not
changed. He still desires the earth to be filled with those who serve and obey
him. The covenant with Abraham ensures on basis of God’s word the promise that
the blessings of the creational covenant will be restored. In addition, these
blessings will reach all nations and therefore fill the earth (Gn 12:1-3). The
Davidic covenant ensures that one of the king’s offspring will establish rest
and a dwelling place in the new kingdom
- a kingdom that offers eternal restoration (2 Sam 7:1-17).
The importance of seeing the Great Commission as the Creational
Restorative Covenant can now be fully understood. The command of Christ in
Matthew is not isolated from the creation account, but in direct response to
the destruction of the Fall. The
ability to fill the earth with those who serve and obey the Creator has been
disabled and the possibility of proper inward function shattered. Christ,
through His redeeming work on the cross and resurrection, has now enabled
obedience to the covenant. This redeeming work is to be understood as
restorative.[28]
The creational design norm stands in hope of being restored through the
Creational Restorative Covenant. Both are singular in their purpose; the
filling of God’s creation with His people. Gentry makes the connection between
the two covenants[29] saying,
“Both the Creation and New Creation Mandates [Great Commission] are designed
for the subduing of the earth to the glory of God.”[30] He goes
on to add that the New Creation Mandate, “restores man ethically to the
righteous task of the Creation Mandate.”[31] That
which was disabled by the fall is now enabled in the gospel. This gospel of restoration is to be
taken to the nations; because it is the nations that fill the earth. The nations are to be made disciples;
because it is then that they can serve and obey their Creator and be faithful
to the Creational Covenant. As
The
demands of the one covenant of life, now jarred by
the
disintegrating effects of sin, remain, to be re-
integrated
by the Lord of the covenant in the grace
fleshed
out by the redemptive death and resurrection
of Christ.[32]
As
deep as the effects of sin have crept into the creation, so will the effects of
the work of Christ seep in to restore creation. Walters says it clearest,
“Everywhere humanity’s sinfulness disrupts and deforms. Everywhere Christ’s
victory is present with the defeat of sin and the recovery of creation.”[33] The
design norm stands, waiting for restoration; restoration that comes through the
victorious work of Christ and His Creational Restorative Covenant with His
people.
Bibliography
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by
Dempster, Stephen G. Dominion and Dynasty: A theology of the Hebrew Bible.
Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen
World.
Glasser, Arthur F. Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s
Hedlund, Roger E. The
Kostenberger, Andreas J., and Peter T.
O’Brien. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth:
A Biblical Theology of Missions.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Towards an Old Testament Theology.
________.
Lee, Francis Nigel. n.d. Creation and Commission: A New Translation and Commentary on Genesis One
through Three. Jesus lives series.
Liederbach, Mark and Alvin Reid. The Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers
in an Emerging Culture.
Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis”, in Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
vol. 2. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein.
________. The
Pentateuch as Narrative.
Spykman, Gordon J. Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics.
Walters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for Reformational Worldview, 2nd
ed.
Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.
Young, John M.L. “The Place and Importance of
Numerical Church Growth”, in Theological Perspectives
on Church Growth. Edited by Harvie M. Conn, 57-73.
[1] The term “design norm” is taken from Mark Kreitzer’s classnotes, unpublished.
[2]
Wright, Christopher J.H., The Mission of
God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, (
[4]
Kaiser, Walter C.,
[5]
Wright,
[6] Ibid, 214.
[7] For a detailed argument showing Mt 28:19-20 as a covenant, see Kenneth Gentry, The Greatness of the Great Commission, chap. 2 and Wright, Mission of God, 354-355..
[8]
Wright,
[9] Sailhamer,
John H., “Genesis”, In Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, vol. 2, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990), 44-45.
[10] Ibid.
[11] The idea of this alternate translation is taken from Sailhamer, “Genesis” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 44-45, and U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. by Israel Abrhams, (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1978), 121-123. Sailhamer suggests “worship and obey” and Cassuto “serve and guard” as the best translation.
[12] Sailhamer, “Genesis”, 45.
[13] Ibid, and Cassuoto, Book of Genesis, 122.
[14]This possibility was suggested by Sailhamer in a class on Genesis at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in the Fall of 2006. In addition, Cassuto gives evidence of several existing manuscripts that omit the Mappiq, Book of Genesis, 122.
[15] Pointings were added by the Masoretes between the fifth and eighth centuries A.D.
[16] Sailhamer, “Genesis”, 45.
[17]
Liederbach, Mark and Alvin Reid, The
Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers in an Emerging Culture, (
[18] English Versions: Gn 30:40, 32:17, 32:25, 42:38, 43:32, 44:20; Ex 12:16, 22:19, 24:2, Dt 8:3, 22:25; Jgs 3:20; 1 Sm 7:3, 7:4; 2 Sm 13:32, 13:33, 17:2, 18:24,25,26, 20:21; 1 Kgs 12:20, 14:13, 18:6, 22:31; 2 Kgs 17:18; 2 Chr 18:30; Est 1:16, 3:6; Jb 9:8; Pss 72:18, 136:4; 148:13; Is 2:11, 2:17.
[19]
Wright,
[20] Ibid, 65.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid, 404.
[23] Liederbach, Convergent Church, 124.
[24]
[25] Ibid, 2.
[26]
Wolters, Albert, Creation Regained:
Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, 2nd ed., (
[27] This is not to suggest there are multiple covenants, but
[28] Ibid, 69.
[29] Gentry outlines four similarities between what he calls the Creation Mandate and New Creation Mandate in his work The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), chapter 1.
[30] Gentry, Great Commission, 13.
[31] Ibid.
[32]
[33] Wolters, Creation Regained, 73.