Does the great commission apply to everyone?

        Lately I've run into quite a few people who are determined to change the meaning of the great commission as it applies to Christians today. This command, which should give us joy, excitement, meaning, and purpose is seen as grievous by some. I can only assume that this stems from an over-attachment to this world with its temporary pleasures and comforts, fear of men, or plain laziness. Whatever the motives are for these attacks, I think it's worthwhile to frame some responses. The accusations generally fall into two main categories which I'll tackle here.

• The great commission only applied to the twelve, not the rest of us. 

        If you claim that the great commission applied only to the twelve, we have to ask the question, “which other commands only apply to them?” Perhaps the command to love one another was only intended for the original hearers. Nonsense. It's interesting to note though that people who make this claim refuse to apply their logic across the board. They only want to cherry pick the one commandment that they don't like. The answer to this objection lies right in the commission itself: “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. Surely this commission is also included in “all things”. Also note that there's no way the twelve could have fulfilled this command on their own, and they certainly didn't.
        Let's also look at the rest of Jesus' ministry. He called every one of his disciples, not just the twelve, to follow him. He spent years showing them first hand how to minister to others, specifically in preaching the gospel. Obviously, the twelve had a special mission, but it was special only in scope and specificity. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that there were certain commands that didn't apply to other Christians. In fact, this idea runs contrary to passages like Gal. 3:28 that state all Christians are equal. When Jesus wants something done, he doesn't only use a special group of people (contrary to the clergy/laity division you see in churches), but the Lord delights in using 'average' people to perform his work.
        Finally, we can see this claim as nonsense from the testimony of the early church. Much of Acts focuses on specific instances of the apostles, mostly Paul. Still, if you're paying attention, you'll notice that most of the spread of the gospel is accomplished by the average rank and file Christians. For example, see Acts 8:1 (notice the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but others fled during persecution) and compare this will Acts 11:19-20. Recall that the first martyr wasn't an apostle or church leader, but a regular guy. As a deacon Stephen was to be in charge of taking care of widows and the poor. Apparently, even with this heavy charge on his shoulders, he was convinced it was important for him to go out and preach the gospel to people. We could go on. Acts and the epistles tell a unified story. The early churches had plenty of problems, but zeal in preaching the gospel was not one of them.

• The great commission isn't properly translated, it should be more passive. 

        Of the two accusations, I come across this one less frequently. Nevertheless, it has apparently found a home in the heart of plenty of people. This actually begs a deeper question that I want to touch – which Bible do you trust? It's not just an issue of different ways to say things, but revolves around trust in God's promises to preserve his word in the hands of Christians (ex. Ps. 12:7). For a more full treatment see #6 of The Ten Deadly Heresies. Since I hold to the Textus Receptus (from which the KJV is translated), I'll use it as the base for my discussion.
        So does the KJV translate the great commission improperly? One proposed rework that I've seen recently suggests that it should read more like: “as you are going, make disciples...”. Therefore, they say, there's no need to actively preach the gospel to others. Just go through life as you normally would, except live a little better, and maybe tell someone about Christ if they ask. Booorrring! Do you really think that's all that Christ asks of us? When Jesus calls us to lay down our life for the sake of him and the gospel (Matt. 10:39), do you really think he's just going to clean you up and then send you off in basically the same direction of life that you were going? What about the command to deny ourselves, to strive as faithful soldiers of the cross? (ex. Matt.16:24) None of this makes any sense if the battle for the gospel is merely passive.
        Now that we've looked at how the proposed understanding doesn't mesh with other parts of Scripture, let's deal with the proposed translation itself. First, I would remark that even if we grant the assumption that this new translation is correct, it still wouldn't justify the conclusion that sharing the gospel is passive. It would just make it sound like Jesus is assuming they're going to preach the gospel. After all, where else would they go, and what would they do? The Lord has just spent years teaching them to minister to others, even if Jesus gave the commission phrased like this, the disciples would still understand it perfectly. Again, if you try to make the case that the great commission was passive, a simple reading of Acts makes it perfectly clear that nobody understood it that way, but they all knew it was something to be done actively by each Christian.
         There's one final point I'll make on this. If this is truly the “correct translation” as decided by so many pastors who took one year of Greek courses online, why are you hard pressed to find any translation that renders it this way? Really, there's so much variety in modern translations, with some even removing whole passages and significantly changing others. If the translation is so uncertain, surely there's someone out there willing to translate it 'correctly'. Not really. I checked all the major modern translations and some historical, Geneva, ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NLT, etc. and even a few very liberal translations. Of about 20 different translations that I checked, nearly all of them rendered the passage actively, as in the KJV. I found one exception in an obscure version that I had never even heard of before. Isn't that interesting. Even modern scholars, who are willing to change/question significant parts of the Bible, all agree on the translation of the great commission. I'm not saying that a modern translation would justify the argument, but if this idea is to be accepted, shouldn't you be able to find someone who has put serious effort into understanding the translation process who would agree to this rendering? Their argument fails on even this 'bare minimum' test. Without little/no suppport from any real translator, historical or modern, to support this position, I can only conclude that this idea is mostly championed by people who know just enough Greek to be dangerous, who use it to justify their cold heart towards the Lord and their fellow men.
        There's a good lesson here. In general, you should always get very skeptical when someone takes your Bible and tries to say what it really means in the original language. Translators, especially historic ones, were not stupid or careless, but devoted their life to their studies. If you've ever struggled with this type of thing I highly recommend doing some reading on God's preservation of the Bible. If you've been clinging to various excuses to justify your cold attitude, repent and seek to follow the Lord without reservation. I'll make another post soon which should be helpful in understanding your part in the Lord's work.