The Great Commission refers to the instruction given by Jesus Christ to his disciples after his supposed resurrection, as recorded in the New Testament (particularly in Matthew 28:18–20 and Mark 16:15–16). In these passages, Jesus commands his followers to spread his teachings, make disciples of all nations (Gentiles), and to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This directive is foundational for Christian missionaries. However, a critical examination of the biblical texts and their historical context raises compelling arguments that the Great Commission may not have occurred as described. Instead, it appears to be a later innovation added to support the emerging Christian Church’s universal mission.
The Fabricated Ending of Mark 16:9-19
The Gospel of Mark, widely regarded as the earliest Gospel, which was used extensively by the authors of Matthew and Luke, ends abruptly at Mark 16:8. In this oldest version, the women discover the empty tomb and are informed by a young man that Jesus has risen, but they flee in fear and tell no one. There are no recorded post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, no teachings, and no instructions to the disciples.
This ending starkly contrasts with the later Gospels, which depict elaborate resurrection scenes and detailed commissioning of the disciples. The absence of these elements in the oldest account strongly suggests that such narratives were later additions rather than part of the original story.
The longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) includes post-resurrection appearances and the Great Commission. However, this section is absent from the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Scholars widely agree that the longer ending was added by scribes in the second century to provide closure and align Mark with the other Gospels.
The stylistic and thematic differences between Mark 16:9–20 and the rest of Mark’s Gospel further support the argument that these verses were not part of the original text. This raises significant doubts about the authenticity of any commissioning narrative attributed to Jesus in Mark.
According to Misquoting Jesus, page 75, by author Bart Ehrman, it states the following regarding these added verses to Mark:
The verses are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the writing style varies from what we find elsewhere in Mark; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand (e.g., Mary Magdalene is introduced in verse 9 as if she hadn’t been mentioned yet, even though she is discussed in the preceding verses; there is another problem with the Greek that makes the transition even more awkward); and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark. In short, the evidence is sufficient to convince nearly all textual scholars that these verses are an addition to Mark.
Contradictions Among the Gospels
The resurrection accounts and commissioning narratives vary significantly across the Gospels:
Matthew (28:18–20): Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee, gives the Great Commission, and promises his perpetual presence.
Luke (24:36–49): Jesus appears in Jerusalem, emphasizes the fulfillment of prophecy, and instructs the disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit before beginning their mission.
John (20:19–22): Jesus appears to the disciples, breathes on them, and imparts the Holy Spirit, but there is no explicit commissioning to all nations.
Mark (in the extended ending): The Great Commission appears as a late addition, urging the disciples to preach to all creation.
These accounts are inconsistent in geography, timing, and content. For instance, Matthew’s emphasis on Galilee contrasts with Luke’s focus on Jerusalem. Such contradictions undermine the credibility of the commissioning narratives and suggest they were shaped by the theological agendas of the authors rather than historical events.
The Shift Toward Gentile Evangelism: A Pauline Innovation
In the Book of Acts, the disciples initially focus exclusively on preaching to Jews. It is not until Peter’s encounter with Cornelius (Acts 10) that the inclusion of Gentiles begins to take shape, and even this is presented as a surprising and divinely mandated development. The broader mission to the Gentiles is primarily driven by Paul, who explicitly identifies himself as the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13).
If Jesus had indeed commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations (Gentiles), as the Great Commission claims, it is puzzling why the early Church’s outreach to Gentiles appears so gradual and contentious. This suggests that the universal scope of the Christian mission may have been a later theological development rather than an original teaching of Jesus.
Baptismal Practices in Acts
The Great Commission in Matthew specifies baptizing “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Yet in the Book of Acts, baptisms are consistently performed only “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). The absence of the triad formula in these accounts indicates that the early Church did not practice baptism in the way the Great Commission describes. This discrepancy further suggests that the triad directive was a later liturgical addition rather than a historical command from Jesus, most likely to set a foundation for justification of the Trinitarian doctrine. However, it is worth pointing out that mentioning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not constitute a Trinity, as simply stating these three entities does not imply that they are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial, as the Trinity doctrine requires.
Theological Motivations for the Great Commission
The inclusion of the Great Commission in the later Gospels aligns with the needs of the early Church as it transitioned from a small Jewish sect to a global religious movement. By attributing a universal mission to Jesus, the Gospel writers provided theological justification for the Church’s expanding outreach. This retroactive attribution of teachings and instructions to Jesus was a common practice in ancient historiography, serving to legitimize the Church’s evolving mission and authority.
Jesus Bodily Resurrection Mythology
The addition of the Great Commission narrative creates significant doubts regarding the entire story of Jesus’ bodily resurrection as depicted in the Gospels when examined in light of the earliest accounts. Mark, the oldest Gospel, provides the simplest and most enigmatic account of the Resurrection. In its earliest form (Mark 16:1-9), Mary Magdalene and other women visit the tomb, encounter a young man who informs them that Jesus has risen, and flee in fear, telling no one. Notably, this account does not mention an empty tomb or Jesus appearing to anyone, let alone engaging with his disciples, eating with them, or providing further teachings. These elements, central to the Resurrection narratives in later Gospels, are conspicuously absent in the earliest version of Mark.
This silence on critical details contrasts sharply with the later Gospels. In Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus’ bodily appearances are vivid and detailed. He speaks to his disciples, shows them his wounds, eats meals with them, and even gives them final instructions. The expansion of these accounts in later texts suggests a process of theological embellishment rather than historical recollection. If the Resurrection had truly occurred in such a dramatic and corporeal manner, it seems improbable that Mark’s Gospel, the earliest and likely closest to the events, would fail to include these details.
If we compare the accounts of Luke and Acts, which are understood to be by the same author, it adds more doubt to the authenticity of the resurrection narrative. In the Gospel of Luke (24:50-51), Jesus ascends to heaven on the same day as his resurrection. However, Acts 1:3 states that Jesus presented himself alive to the disciples over a period of 40 days, speaking about the kingdom of God before ascending. This creates a key contradiction: Luke 24 suggests an ascension on the day of resurrection, with no significant gap in the sequence of events, while Acts 1 introduces an extended timeline, indicating that Jesus remained with his disciples for forty days before ascending. These differing accounts present a clear discrepancy in the timeline of post-resurrection events.
If we compare the narratives within the Gospels regarding the resurrection story, we see that the Gospels are riddled with contradictions as to what supposedly took place, even if we include the extended version of Mark. The details regarding Jesus’s resurrection are found in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20 – 21, and they are riddled with contradictions between these four narrations.
Further complicating the picture is Paul’s description of the Resurrection in his epistles. Writing decades before the Gospels, Paul emphasizes a spiritual and cosmic understanding of the Resurrection rather than a physical, bodily event. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:42-50, Paul contrasts earthly bodies with spiritual bodies, declaring, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” While Paul does mention that Jesus “appeared” to various individuals (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), his language is abstract, focusing on visionary experiences rather than tangible encounters. There is no mention of Jesus eating with his disciples, showing his wounds, or physically interacting with them.
This divergence between Paul’s spiritualized view of the Resurrection and the later Gospel’s physical narrative-rich accounts suggests that the bodily Resurrection story was developed over time to meet the theological and apologetic needs of the early Church. Paul’s emphasis on a cosmic transformation aligns more closely with the mystical and apocalyptic expectations of early Christianity than with the highly physical depictions found in Matthew, Luke, and John.
When combined with the absence of such details in the earliest Gospel and the contradictions between accounts, the plausibility of the Resurrection narrative as traditionally understood becomes increasingly tenuous. It appears more likely that the Resurrection story evolved over time, with each iteration adding layers of detail and theological interpretation to address the spiritual and communal needs of a growing Christian movement.
Conclusion
The Great Commission, as presented in the Gospels, bears the hallmarks of a later-stage innovation. The earliest Gospel, Mark, ends without any post-resurrection appearances or commissioning. The extended ending of Mark, added later, and the contradictory accounts in Matthew, Luke, and the complete absence of such a directive in John suggest that these narratives were shaped by theological motives rather than historical memory. Furthermore, the gradual inclusion of Gentiles in the early Church and the differing baptismal practices in Acts highlights the evolving nature of early Christian theology and practice.
Rather than a historical event, the Great Commission appears to be a theological construct retroactively attributed to Jesus to support the universal mission of the Church. This conclusion invites Christians to reevaluate their entire traditional narrative of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and underscores the need for critical engagement with their Gospel accounts.