The Practice of the Great Commission Doctrine
in the book of Acts

Mark W. Fenison

Did the Church at Jerusalem obey this commission? Some believe that during the period of Acts 8-11 the third aspect of this commission was not observed as we find cases where some were baptized but not added to an assembly or there is no mention of an assembly. How are we to reconcile this with the explicit command of Christ in the commission? One thing is for sure, contrary examples can never replace explicit precepts as the rule for practice. We can find many
examples of disobedience in the scriptures to many commands but that disobedience never replaces the precept as the rule for practice. We believe - (1) It should be no surprise that Apostolic Churches obeyed what Christ commanded in the commission and that it is clearly and unambiguously spelled out in no uncertain terms right at the beginning. (2) If a departure from this commission is found it should be no surprise that it is due to some kind of clearly stated disruption and such a departure is the exception to the rule rather than the rule. (3) It should be no surprise that such a clearly stated disruption that gives rise to an exception is addressed by the Apostolic churches and an attempt is made to correct that departure and return to the Great Commission rule. First, it will be asked "Did Apostolic Christianity Obey the Commission as a Rule"? Second, "Is there any exceptions to this rule and are they clearly stated? and last "How did the Church Respond to such Exceptions?"

A. Did Apostolic Christianity Obey the Commission As a Rule?

The book of Acts opens with Christ commanding them to wait in Jerusalem until they were empowered by the coming of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission command (Acts 1:5-8). Immediately upon being empowered by the Holy Spirit, Luke spells it out in no uncertain terms right at the beginning that this commission was obeyed step by step:

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers….added to the church. -- Acts 2:41-42,46

Now compare the above with the logical procedure and aspects of the Great Commission:

1. "go (with the gospel) "RECEIVED HIS WORD"
2. "baptizing them" WERE BAPTIZED"
3. Gathered for instruction "ADDED UNTO THEM"
4. Teaching them "CONTINUED STEADFASTLY IN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE "

Luke very clearly and very carefully spells it out in no uncertain terms that the church at Jerusalem obeyed this commission right from the very start. Moreover, Luke uses the grammatical periphrastic construct to clearly establish before the eyes of the reader that
this was not a one time thing but the continuing practice or pattern followed by the church
at Jerusalem. The words "continued steadfastly" in our KJV represent a grammatical construction consisting of two verbs which denote that what was a past on going action (imperfect tense) was an action that continues on into the present (present tense). The natural
implication of this grammatical construction is what they began to practice on the day of Pentecost (imperfect tense) continued on (present tense) as a pattern of practice with this church.
Secondly, Luke introduces the term "added" in verse 41 within a carefully spelled out detailed explanation. Those that were "added" were not "added" just any old way but they were "added" in keeping with the order found in the Great Commission command. They first "received the
word" and then second were "baptized" and then "added" to the teaching assembly in full fellowship with the membership of the church at Jerusalem.

Thirdly, once Luke clearly spells out in such detailed explanation what it meant to be "added to them" and once he clearly grammatically states this was the continued practice or pattern by the church, he then proceeds from this point forward in regard to summarize the whole process
by simply saying folks were "added" assuming that the readers would not imagine they were "added" according to some other fashion differently than what he was careful to spell out the very first time (the law of first mention).

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were ADDED unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord ADDED to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 5:14 And believers were the more ADDED to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

Notice that "added to them" is synonymous with the words "added to the church" as well as "added to the Lord." When the numbers got too large to count or to be "ADDED" up he changes from addition to multiplication ( "they were multiplied")

Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

That such additions and multiplications were not to be thought of as something separate and distinct from church membership is clearly demonstrated by Luke when he brings both together in one passage:

Acts 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Juduea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Acts 11:24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.

This "added" or "multiplied" not only contextually refers back to the procedure spelled out in Acts 2:41-42 but always concludes with church membership.

This same pattern of obedience to the Commission can be seen clearly by the practice of the second great church found in the book of Acts -- the church at Antioch in Acts 13-18.

1. The Church at Antioch ordains and sends out Paul and Silas -- Acts 14:1-3
2. These ordained missionaries are sent out to preach the gospel -- Acts 14:5-19
3. Baptize the gospelized -- Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5
4. organize them into churches -- Acts 14:20-23
5. they continue steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine -- Acts 14:20-23; 16:1-4

Therefore, the Great Commission pattern is the ordinary and normal RULE of practice by the two great Churches in the book of Acts. However, should we expect any other RULE of practice other than what Christ commissioned?

B. Are there Exceptions to this Rule and if so, is there Clearly Stated Reasons given?

Some object to such a RULE of practice because of certain things recorded in Acts 8-11. What about the Samaritans, the Ethiopian Eunuch, Ananais and those believers in Antioch in Acts 8-11? Does not that prove that the Great Commission does not necessarily include the church and church membership?

The book of Acts makes three things very clear. First, the normal and standard practice of the Jerusalem church as well as the church at Antioch was to obey the Great Commission as given by Christ which includes gospelization, baptism and habitual assembling of the baptized together as a church. Second, the writer of Acts 8-11 indicates clearly that the departure from the normal observance of all the Great Commission particulars was due to a clearly spelled out DISRUPTION in the church at Jerusalem rather than to their STANDARD practice. The disruption was a particular persecution by Saul. Acts 8 introduces this persecution and Acts 11 closes with the mention of this particular cause of disruption.

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Juduea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

There can be no doubt that Luke spells out clearly that this was a disruption of the normal condition and practice at the Church in Jerusalem. Some well known scholars have contended that this persecution was sent by God for the purpose to motivate the Jewish Jerusalem Church to obey the Commission by going beyond the Jewish boundaries. They note that the term "scattered" is not the Greek term that denotes a disorganized scattering as when someone throws a rock into a chicken pen and the chickens run in every direction. Rather, this is the Greek term that is used for intentional sowing of seed in a field. Furthermore, the leadership of the church does not "scatter" but remains in Jerusalem. Second, the consistent grammatical gender used to describe those "scattered" preaching the gospel is masculine and in particular the term that excludes women and children is used for them (anar -- Acts 11:19). Third, Luke provides an example of such in the case of Philip (Acts 8) an ordained man (Acts 6). Tradition holds that even Ananias in Damascus was the first ordained Pastor of the church in Damascus.

C. How did the Church Respond to Such Exceptions?

Luke makes it clear that the church at Jerusalem was monitoring its missionaries and responded to any abnormality. Whenever such abnormal cases came to the ears of the church at Jerusalem they dispatched authorized representatives to investigate and oversee such believers:

Acts 8: 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Acts 11:22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch..

The term "sent" translates a Greek term that means "a sent authorized representative." This is the verbal form for the term translated "apostle" and an apostle was an ordained representative of
Christ. This verb form was used for those "sent" out under the authority of the Church. Notice that the church is the one sending Barnabas out and limiting the extent of his mission ("that he should go as far as…….")

Luke spells it out clearly that this disruption from the normal Great Commission procedures was not left undone but that the Church at Jerusalem followed up such cases as they came to their attention.
Hence, the church at Jerusalem was committed to the Great Commission pattern and monitored any deviance from that pattern by its members sending out authorized representatives to ensure Christ's commission was obeyed in every particular.

Whenever news came back to the ears of the church that was questionable, they authorized and sent someone to investigate it and what followed in each case was the mention of "churches" or
a "church" as the result.

Acts 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Juduea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Acts 11:23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.

24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch

Hence, the disruption from completing the commission is rectified and Acts 11-18 returns to the normal preaching, baptizing, gathering those into churches in order to be taught how to observe
the all things. What else should one expect other than attempted compliance with the Great Commission???
Therefore, Acts 1-8 and 13-18 demonstrate clearly that the rule of action was obedience to the Great Commission in all of its aspects.

The question to those who would argue contrary to what Luke spells out in Acts 2:41-42 is "why would you think the early Christians would want to disobey any particular of the Great Commission?" Why take an obvious EXCEPTION to the RULE in the book of Acts and attempt to make it the rule? Shouldn't it be expected that the early Christians would obey the Great Commission in all of its particulars? Shouldn't it be expected during a time of obvious disruption that the church would attempt to follow up and confirm the due gospel order among such disciples? Does not the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch and baptism demonstrate that "silence" should not be used to prove disobedience to the commission but rather obedience? There is nothing recorded concerning Philip telling the Eunuch anything about baptism and yet we find him wanting to be baptized. Why would Philip tell him about his need to obey baptism but not the final aspect of the commission as well? You say the text does not say so! Neither does it say that Philip instructed him previously about baptism either! Why wouldn't the church at Jerusalem follow this case up by sending someone to complete the commission work as they did in Samaria and all along the way and including Antioch? If one is going to make an assumption on silence, it is far better to assume a conclusion in keeping with what we are explicitly told is
their commission and their practice rather than something contrary to it. The fact that Luke records the case of the Eunuch is proof that his case was known to the church at Jerusalem as much as the church knew of the case at Samaria. The book of Acts demonstrates clearly that under normal uninterrupted circumstances that membership into a church is the direct and immediate result of obedience to the Great Commission. The book of Acts demonstrates clearly that under abnormal and interrupted conditions it was the practice of the church to follow up any cases they were not sure of (cases that do not seem to conform to all aspects of their commission) that came to their ears (Acts 8:14; 11:20) and only after such follow ups are stated is there mention of churches (Acts 9:31; 11:26).

The conclusion is that the RULE of Apostolic Christianity was to obey the Great Commission in all of its particulars so that church membership completes the discipleship program and where ever there occurs EXCEPTIONS to this rule those exceptions are dealt with by New Testament Churches so that they eventually conform to that end with the result of membership in a church of Christ.

Review Questions

1. How is Acts 2:41-42 similar to Matthew 28:19-20?

2. Did the church at Jerusalem obey the Great Commission in chapters 2-8?

3. Is there anything noted by Luke that would explain an interruption to the common practice of the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 8-11

4. Is there anything stated or implied that indicates the Church at Jerusalem took actions to restore obedience to the Great Commission?

5. In Acts 13-18 in the missionary journeys of Paul is there indications that the order of the Great Commission was obeyed as given by Christ?