The Watchmans Study

Some simple things that we are asked to participate in like the Great Commission have been missing from most churches. They would rather have a roll sheet and a tithe record. We need to get back to basics and share the gospel and teach the scriptures, not our own interpretation.

Great Commission teaching

> why is the great commission not being taught as much

The search results identify several interconnected reasons why the Great Commission receives diminished emphasis in contemporary churches.

Some dismiss it as applying only to the original apostles, others believe the evangelistic task is already complete, and still others view it as an outdated cultural mandate.[1] Pluralism has also contributed to this decline, as some prioritize tolerance over conversion efforts.[1] However, the search results suggest deeper structural problems within churches themselves.

Churches struggle to recognize and practice the teaching dimension of the commission because they become preoccupied with quantifiable metrics like converts and baptisms.[2] Spiritual growth resists numerical measurement in ways that enrollment numbers don’t.[2] This fixation on statistics over spiritual formation has produced shallow congregations.[2] Additionally, teaching Christ’s commands about godly living proves unpopular, and preachers emphasizing obedience lack the appeal of those who avoid challenging their audiences.[2]

The search results also point to a theological disconnection. Churches that minimize theology cannot sustain commitment to the Great Commission.[3] A congregation lacking evangelistic passion exhibits theological weakness—particularly a deficient understanding of Christ’s nature and purposes—even if it possesses correct doctrinal statements.[3] Some theological systems emphasizing God’s sovereignty in salvation inadvertently minimize the church’s active role in fulfilling the commission.[1] When churches lose sight of how the Great Commission connects to God’s cosmic purposes and Christ’s ultimate reign, it becomes merely another program rather than the defining identity of Christian community.

[1] Preston Nix, “The Great Commission,” in Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016), 154–155.
[2] John G. Butler, Jesus Christ: His Disciples, Studies of the Savior (Clinton, IA: LBC Publications, 2003), 5:312–313.
[3] Russell D. Moore, “Theology Bleeds: Why Theological Vision Matters for the Great Commission, and Vice Versa,” in The Great Commission Resurgence (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), 117–119.

> would it be safe to assume that the great commission is a commandment of Jesus

Yes, absolutely. Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to “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.” (Matt 28:18–20) This appears in Matthew’s account, and the same directive is reinforced across the Gospel accounts. Mark records Jesus saying, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15) Luke captures Jesus instructing that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46–49) John preserves Jesus’s words, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” (John 20:21)

The consistency across all four Gospels makes this unambiguously a command from Jesus himself, not merely a suggestion or optional practice. Jesus grounded this commission in his own authority, stating that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” (Matt 28:18–20) establishing the basis for why his followers should obey it. The disciples were further empowered through the Holy Spirit to be “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

The Great Commission represents far more than a historical directive to the apostles—it functions as the defining mandate for the church’s identity and purpose across all generations.

> with that said, then should the 4th commandment be observed and practiced for all?

Not necessarily—this is one of the most contested questions in Christian theology, and the search results reveal significant disagreement about whether the fourth commandment binds modern believers.

Many Christians argue the Sabbath commandment does not apply today. Dispensationalists contend it was specific to Israel, while New Covenant theologians believe the Old Testament laws were superseded except where the New Testament explicitly reaffirms them—and the Sabbath is not reaffirmed. Covenant theologians maintain the moral law remains binding but exclude the seventh-day Sabbath requirement specifically.[1]

The New Testament evidence complicates literal observance. The Sabbath command is the only one of the Ten Commandments not repeated in the New Testament.[2] Jesus claimed to be “Lord of the Sabbath” with authority to overrule it, and Paul instructed the Colossians not to let anyone judge them regarding Sabbath observance.[2] Paul also wrote that one person may esteem certain days as special while another regards all days alike, with each person being fully convinced in their own mind. (Rom 14:5–6)

However, the principle of rest reflects God’s nature itself—after creation, God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. While this creation principle suggests continuing validity for Sabbath rest, the specific command to cease work on the seventh day was part of Israel’s ceremonial law.[2] The principle of Sabbath rest may be binding for all time, but how and when that rest is practiced is governed by Christian freedom.[2]

Seventh-day Sabbatarians and Adventists believe the commandment remains binding for the seventh day specifically[1], while many other Christians view Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, since it commemorates Christ’s resurrection.[2] The distinction matters: the Great Commission is reaffirmed throughout the New Testament as binding on all believers, whereas Sabbath observance carries no such universal New Testament mandate.

[1] John C. Peckham, God with Us: An Introduction to Adventist Theology (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press; Biblical Research Institute, 2023), 499.
[2] Mark L. Strauss, How to Read the Bible in Changing Times: Understanding and Applying God’s Word Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 234–235.

> but the 4th commandment was made for all men and Jesus said if we love him to follow all his commandments

You’re raising the central tension in this debate. Jesus did say “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” (John 14:15) and he taught that “The Sabbath was made for man,” (Mark 2:27–28) suggesting it was designed for universal human benefit. The Sabbath’s foundation rests on God’s own pattern—resting on the seventh day after creation and blessing it as holy. (Exod 20:8–11)

However, the New Testament apostles interpreted Jesus’s teaching differently than a straightforward application of all Ten Commandments would suggest. When the Jerusalem council addressed whether gentile converts must observe Jewish law, they determined that believers should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled meat, and sexual immorality—notably omitting the Sabbath from their requirements. (Acts 15:28–29) This deliberate exclusion is significant.

Paul’s guidance creates further complexity. He acknowledged that some esteem certain days as special while others regard all days equally, with each person being fully convinced in their own mind. (Rom 14:5–6) More pointedly, Paul instructed believers not to let others judge them regarding Sabbath observance, describing such observances as “a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Col 2:16–17)

The resolution lies in distinguishing between the principle and the practice. Hebrews affirms that “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,” (Heb 4:9–11) suggesting the principle of rest endures. Yet Jesus claimed to be “lord of the Sabbath,” (Matt 12:8) asserting authority over how and when that rest is observed. Loving Jesus and keeping his commandments may mean honoring the principle of Sabbath rest while exercising Christian freedom regarding its specific observance—a position that takes both your concern and apostolic practice seriously.

> but even the apostles after Jesus kept the Sabbath and if we are Gods imagers, then shouldn’t we fall into Gods own pattern?

You’re articulating a compelling theological position, and the search results provide substantial support for viewing Sabbath rest as rooted in God’s own pattern. The seventh day was intended to imitate God’s own creation process of work complemented by rest and reflection at its completion.[1] If humans bear God’s image, then participating in this rhythm reflects something fundamental about how we’re designed.

However, the historical record complicates the claim about apostolic practice. Sunday observance was nearly universal from the very beginning, and while the idea of a “Christian Sabbath” is not clearly stated until Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of weekly Sabbath rest being a creation ordinance is not inconsistent with the theology and practice of many early theologians.[2] The apostles did continue gathering on the first day of the week, but they shifted the focus from the seventh day to Sunday—commemorating Christ’s resurrection rather than creation’s completion.

The search results suggest a middle position that honors your concern: Weekly Sabbath rest is a normative pattern for mankind, and that pattern, though enjoined by various additional rules, remains in effect until the second coming of Christ.[2] Yet the specific day and manner of observance changed. According to Hebrews, the rest God provides through Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath and the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises to provide rest to his people, reflecting the culmination of redemptive history.[3]

So the principle—that we as God’s image-bearers should embody his work-and-rest pattern—appears binding. Whether that requires the seventh day specifically or permits Christian freedom regarding which day remains the genuine point of disagreement, even among those who affirm Sabbath as a creation ordinance.

[1] Julián Andrés GoNZález Holguín et al., “Ninth Sunday after the Epiphany,” in Connections: A Lectionary Commentary for Preaching and Worship: Year B: Advent through Epiphany, ed. Joel B. Green et al. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020), 305.
[2] Jon English Lee, There Remains a Sabbath Rest for the People of God: A Biblical, Theological, & Historical Defense of Sabbath Rest as a Creation Ordinance (Founders Press, 2024), 30, 269.
[3] Joshua Joel Spoelstra, “Rest,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014). [See here.]

> I believe that with all these “Christian Factions-Denominations” they have all in one way or another watered down the truth in scripture to serve their own purpose

Your frustration reflects a genuine theological concern that scholars have articulated seriously. The notion of multiple equally valid denominations is foreign to the New Testament—even antithetical to it—and this fragmented state represents the sinful result of doctrinal errors mixed with schismatic attitudes.[1]

However, the search results reveal a more nuanced picture than simple “watering down for self-interest.” Many denominations originated from legitimate separations where groups broke from others over genuine doctrinal concerns—the Southern Baptist Convention itself emerged through multiple layers of reformation and dissent.[1] The question becomes: were these separations justified responses to error, or prideful divisions?

While it takes two parties to split, blame doesn’t always distribute evenly, and both parties can be at fault—but Christian relationships cannot adopt a “no-fault divorce” mentality.[1] This suggests that some denominational distinctions may reflect legitimate doctrinal boundaries, even if others represent unnecessary fragmentation.

The deeper problem identified in the search results is structural: When denominational headquarters becomes infected with false teaching, every connected church embraces the same falsehood, spreading error widely.[2] Additionally, the solution requires believers, churches, and associations to examine themselves fearfully to ensure they are neither the heretics nor the unjustifiably factious ones.[1]

Rather than assuming all denominations water down truth equally, the biblical standard asks: Does this group preserve core doctrinal truth while maintaining unity with other believers? Or does it prioritize institutional loyalty over scriptural fidelity? That distinction matters profoundly.

[1] Jason G. Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm B. Yarnell, Upon This Rock: A Baptist Understanding of the Church (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), 146–147.
[2] Frank Viola, Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008), 235.

> that makes sense

I am glad that distinction was helpful. The tension between maintaining denominational identity and seeking the purity of biblical truth is a central challenge that many throughout church history have wrestled with as they seek to remain faithful.

If you would like to explore how different historical or theological traditions have addressed the challenge of church unity or the interpretation of scripture, I am happy to help you find information on those specific perspectives.