Tucked away at the end of the Gospel of Matthew is the great commission. It reads, “Therefore, go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” (Mat 28.19). Oftentimes modalists and unitarians question the validity of this verse because of its trinitarian flavor. Typically, the questioner makes the point that we do not have manuscripts of Matthew 28.19 before a.d 325 when the church ratified the Trinitarian creed at Nicea and that they were all corrupted at that time. Furthermore, they refer to Eusebius, the famous church historian, because he quotes an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 (i.e. “Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name”) in his writings. Although it certainly wouldn’t ruin my day if Matthew 28.19 turned out to be spurious, I am wary of textual arguments motivated by theology. As a result, I want to lay out for you the reasons why every handwritten and printed Greek text contains the full version of Matthew 28.19.
Manuscript Evidence
Even though there is absolutely no textual variation whatsoever for Matthew 28.19 in the manuscripts, some allege these manuscripts are ALL wrong and a corruption entered into the picture during or after the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 when the Trinity became accepted. There are two points to keep in mind here: firstly, the Trinity was not codified until a.d. 381 (the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 merely decided that Jesus was God while leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation); secondly, there are a number of Greek papyri dating from the third century. Sadly, these earlier manuscripts, like most manuscripts, are only accessible to those with special access to the museums where they are stored. I wish CSNTM published these on their website, but they don’t. However, if there was an early manuscript with even a slight variation, Bruce Metzger’s UBS 4th edition or his Commentary on the GNT would note it. For the sake of argument let’s assume there really are no manuscripts before a.d. 325 that contain Matthew 28. Where does that leave us? We still have thousands of manuscripts, some of which date back to the fourth century (like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). These manuscripts contain the standard reading of Matthew 28.19. This is significant because these differ from one another in many places, so it is not like Constantine or whoever forcibly standardized all the New Testament manuscripts in a.d. 325. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that later manuscripts are copied from earlier ones. Thus, a later, or even medieval manuscript, could preserve a very early reading. Again, we have no evidence of an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 in any of these manuscripts.
For the shorter reading hypothesis to be correct, someone would have had to destroy all of the manuscripts containing the “original” version of Matthew 28.19 and replace them with new ones with the longer reading. This is quite a conspiracy theory that requires a level of control that did not exist at that time. Fourth century Christianity was a mess organizationally, which is why the century was chock full of controversies and councils. If there was a strong pope figure in the fourth century this theory might be possible, but he would still lack the power and thoroughness to ensure that every last scrap of the original Matthew 28.19 was destroyed. We know this because a Roman emperor once tried to do something similar—a man named Diocletian. In the early fourth century he fiercely persecuted Christianity and tried to collect and destroy all of the New Testament manuscripts, which is why we do not have many from before the fourth century. But even the Great Diocletian who had the full power of the Roman government behind him could not accomplish this task. Thus, the hypothesis that some sect within Christianity succeeded in tweaking all the manuscripts is untenable.
Early Quotes by Christian Authors
Even if we cannot find or access early manuscripts before the fourth century to see if they contain Matthew 28.19, we can still consult the many Christian authors who lived in the second and third centuries to see how they cited it. Below is a list of a few quotations.
Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4
“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”
First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61
“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…”
Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1
“…And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’…”
On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13
“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”
The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18
“And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time.”
Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7
“…But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed…”
The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it. Furthermore, I have not found any controversy over the authenticity of this text anywhere. This is mounting up to be a really solid case: not only do ALL extant Greek manuscripts with Matthew 28.19 in them contain the traditional reading, but all of the church fathers in the second and third century that quote or allude to it use the traditional version. Suddenly the case from Eusebius’ quotations does not seem so impressive. Even so, let’s consider Eusebius’ statements to better understand what is happening.
Eusebius of Caesarea
The theory goes that Eusebius quoted a shortened version of Matthew 28.19 before the council of Nicea in a.d. 325 and then quoted the longer, more Trinitarian, version thereafter. This allegedly proves that the church decided to change the Bible to give more credence to the Trinity theory. I find this hypothesis unconvincing for four reasons. First of all, Eusebius was not a Trinitarian; he was an Arian. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea had written a letter to Alexander, the bishop who excommunicated Arius, demanding he restore Arius. Furthermore, Eusebius called a council in the early 320s at which the gathered bishops vindicated Arius and drafted another letter pressuring Alexander to reinstate him. Lastly, Eusebius found himself deposed by a council in Antioch shortly before the one at Nicea for supporting Arius. Now it is true that Eusebius signed the Nicene Creed in a.d. 325, but historians generally chalk that up to compromise rather than a sudden change of heart. (If he hadn’t signed the creed he would have lost his job as bishop of Caesarea, lost his influence in the debate, and lost his position as one of the emperor’s advisors.) So, Eusebius is not some super Trinitarian defender like Athanasius, but actually quite the opposite. He felt uncomfortable with the Nicene Creed and even wrote a kind of damage control letter home to Caesarea explaining how they were going to understand the new formula. His well-known anti-Nicene position is probably why he is today not known as Saint Eusebius.
Another reason I find the theory that the Council of Nicea changed the Bible unconvincing is that it would have given the anti-Nicene party potent ammunition in the sixty year battle that followed. To my knowledge, the subordinationists never accused the Nicenes of changing the text of Scripture, a charge they surely would have capitalized on if they could have. Rather the battle centered on the meaning of Scripture and arguments based on reason. Thirdly, even if the Nicene sect wanted to change Scripture, they had no mechanism to make that a reality. As I’ve already mentioned, the required organization and hierarchy simply did not exist yet. Lastly, Eusebius quoted the shorter version of Matthew 28.19 after Nicea as well (see In Praise of Constantine 16.8, written in a.d. 336).
So if the conspiracy theory—that the “evil” Eusebius twisted Scripture to inject a Trinitarian dogma—is not true, why did Eusebius so often quote this shorter version? Ancient people did not look up every verse they quoted as they were writing something. It was more common to memorize Scriptures and pull from memory. Ancient texts did not have spaces between words nor did they have chapters much less paragraphs. As a result, it would have been very time consuming to look something up, making authors more likely to quote from memory than try to find something that they were fairly confident they knew. However, sometimes one’s memory can conflate multiple passages together. To this issue George Beasley-Murray addresses the following:
“F. C. Conybeare, in an oft cited article, examined the citations of the text in Eusebius and concluded that Eusebius did not know the longer form of the text until the Council of Nicea, when the Trinitarian doctrine became established. …The real difficulty [with his view] is to determine whether we have any right to speak of a ‘Eusebian reading.’ E. Riggenbach, in a lengthy reply to Conybeare’s article, showed that Eusebius exercised considerable freedom in quoting the Matthaean text, as is evidenced in the fact that the text appears in various forms, even in one and the same work; after Nicea Eusebius cites the commission in both longer and shorter forms; while (in Riggenbach’s view) in the letter written by Eusebius in 325, during the Council of Nicea, the manner in which he cites the common form of the text suggests that he had been familiar with it for a long time.” (George Raymond Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1973), p. 81)
One can easily see how someone’s memory could blur together bits from one verse and another when recalling a verse. I’ve done this and a good number of the textual variants in the gospels are due to scribes remembering a bit from another gospel and injecting it when it was not originally there. But, just because Eusebius habitually misquoted Matthew 28.19, does not mean he did not know the full version as well. Everett Ferguson is helpful here:
“An examination of Eusebius’ references where the baptismal command was omitted shows that it was superfluous to the context (for in every case the emphasis was on the universality of Christ’s teaching in contrast to previous religious and civil law), and consideration of Eusebius’ method of citing Scripture (omitting phrases he counted irrelevant and blending phrases from other passages he counted pertinent) deprives the argument for a shorter text of any validity.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2009), p. 134.)
So, we can more easily account for the Eusebian tendency to quote the shorter version on these grounds rather than positing a conspiracy wherein the church fathers altered the text of Scripture. To entertain the idea of changing Scripture because one Christian misquoted a text centuries later would require a much more solid basis than what we have. Methodologically this wouldn’t work anyway. Should scholars start combing through early Christian authors and correcting the manuscripts based on quotations? This would be like going to a Christian bookstore and throwing out all the Bibles and then piecing together a “more accurate” text based on quotes from Christian authors!
Contradiction with Acts?
One last supporting reason some use to cast doubt on Matthew 28.19 as we have it relates to baptismal practices in the book of Acts. If Matthew 28.19 is accurate then Jesus commanded his followers to baptize “in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit.” However, throughout the book of Acts, when baptisms occur, they never mention this formulaic expression. Here are some examples:
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.
Acts 8:16 For it [the holy spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:47-48 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the holy spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Acts 19:5-6 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
Allegedly these texts contradict Matthew 28.19. But, is there another way to understand them apart from changing what the Bible says? Ferguson provides two other options that are well worth considering:
The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism or alternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean a baptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a general characterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the later history the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there is no necessary contradiction to the description “in the name of the Lord” in Acts and Paul. (Ferguson, p. 136).
So Ferguson suggests that Acts describes what happened, “they were baptized into the name of Jesus,” whereas Matthew describes what words were said, “baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit” or that Matthew 28.19 is not formulaic at all. Another possibility is that Acts describes the confession of the convert whereas Matthew tells us what the baptizer said. It could also be that in the context of Judea, Christians baptized new people in the name of the Lord Jesus because Jews and God-fearers already had an adequate understanding of God and the holy spirit. However, when going out among the nations as in Matthew 28.19, one needs to also explain who God is (cf. Acts 17) and what the holy spirit is (cf. Acts 19). One final idea is that the “name” in Matthew 28.19 is not literal, but the agenda or cause of the father, son, and holy spirit. However we work out the seeming contradiction, our difficulty here does not warrant changing what Scripture says to read more smoothly.
Text -> Exegesis -> Theology
The text is primary; it is the foundation. We do not change what Scripture says on the basis of our exegesis or theology, rather we accept it as a starting point. This is why textual critics develop objective rules to help them figure out which readings are more accurate. They do not want their theological biases to inform their choices. For a good window into how this process happens see Metzger’s Commentary on the Greek New Testament or the NET Study Bible. We are fortunate today to live in a time when the New Testament text is over 99% established based on centuries of discoveries, cataloging, and comparisons.
This brings me to the second step: exegesis. This word basically means to explain what the text means. The idea is that we read out (ex) from Scripture rather than into it. Preachers exegete verses every Sunday when they describe what they mean. Although what the text actually means and what we think it means are hopefully identical, we cannot allow ourselves to be so arrogant as to say we never err in understanding what something says.
Now we move to the pinnacle of our work: theology. One’s theology does not depend on the exegesis of a single text, but on what many different verses say together. This is the most complex level of understanding and it is the most prone to error for all of us. However, so long as we keep everything in order—text then exegesis then theology—we will end up with more accurate theology. For example, if rather than reading what a verse says and interpreting it within its context (exegesis) I cherry pick it to support my theology, I will likely end up with wrong doctrine. Additionally, I cannot allow my theology to change the text of Scripture. Just because I do not believe the Trinity is true does not give me the right to rid the Bible of a verse like Matthew 28.19. To do so is to go in the wrong direction.
Hi , so why do seemingly knowledgeable people get re baptized in the name of Jesus? Does it matter how baptizing is done. Should we do it with all the instructions or texts including both?
Good questions.
The text is neither trinitarian, nor a “formula.”
The Trinity is defined as “one God in 3 Persons,” this is not what the text states, let alone teaches.
And the Apostolic tradition of baptizing “in the name of Jesus” only would imply that they disobeyed Jesus’ “formula” (a legal, fixed form of words).
This obviously cannot be the case.
The Apostles are simply describing the one indivisible experience that the would-be convert has after obeying Jesus’ commandment to be baptized. This was to be a public demonstration of their Conversion-Baptism-Integration into the one body that is the Christian church community.
Also, note that at Pentecost, after the Apostles were baptized by God’s spirit, they preached to the people who “were pierced to the heart” and then asked “What should we do, brothers?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2.38
This is obviously a reference to water baptism.
Peter did not say “be baptized in holy spirit so you can receive holy spirit.”
Actually what he says is “Baptism…saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Lastly, like Matthew, Paul uses 3 different terms pointing to one indivisible experience of: Conversion-Baptism-Integration into the church (1Cor. 6.11; Titus 3.5-6; 2Cor 1.21-22; 3.14; 1Pet 1.1-2; Heb. 9.14.
Yes – Matthew 28:19 can be interpreted in a non-trinitarian manner, but there is a stylistic argument that supports the view that the longer ending of Matthew 28:19 may not be original. To quote Donald A. Hagner in the ‘Word Bible Commentary’ (1995), Vol. 33b, Matthew 14-28, pp. 887-88 :
” The threefold name (at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed …seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day ..There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read ‘make disciples in my name’ [cf. Luke 24:47]. This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation.”
John, that’s very bad from the WBC in light of the fact that Eusebius quotes both the so-called “short” and “long form” of the text. As Dr. Peter Head in his book “Christology and the Synoptic Problem” (1997, 212f.) notes:
“The omission of the phrase can be explained as due to Eusebius’ tendency to abbreviate, as Eusebius elsewhere often cites the longer form [Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; Theophania 4.8]. The shorter reading ‘in my name’ could have been formed as a result of harmonizing Luke 24.47 and Mark 16.17 (as seems to occur in Psalms 59.9). Note that Eusebius also alludes to this passage without using either ‘in my name’ or the full clause [Demonstratio 1.3, 4, 6; Psalms 46.4; 95.3; 144.9; Isaiah 41.10; Theophania 3.4; Theologia III.3]. See further Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning, pp. 151-175; Schaberg, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, pp. 27-29 (who refer to earlier studies).
And there is zero manuscript copy evidence to support “an interpolation.”
Xavier,
I have examined all of the quotes from Eusebius in their larger contexts, as well as Eusebius’ own theology regarding God and His Son. Eusebius was neither Arian nor Trinitarian prior to Nicaea. His views were essentially the same as Justin’s in his Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tatian, and with Tertullian (before he was converted to Montanism). Like these, Eusebius believed that the Son was literally “begotten” out of God at the beginning of creation, was God’s agent in creation, and was (in his pre-human state) of the same essence as God simply because kind begets like kind. (He disagreed with the Arians on this point. They claimed that the Son was created at the beginning of creation and of a different essence which was mutable). The “Son of God” was later fully transformed (changed) into the “Son of Man” (a human being). Virtually all of Eusebius’ quotes of Matt. 28:19 using the short form “in My name” are from his works prior to the Council of Nicaea. Those with the longer (Trinitarian) statement are from his works after Nicaea, after he was reluctantly “persuaded” by Constantine (under false pretenses) to sign the Nicene Creed. He was then honored by Constantine and charged by him to produce 50 standard copies of the NT which were to become the “authorized” version from which copies were to be made. It is also important to know that once the Council of Nicaea took place, the works of Arius and those with similar views were confiscated and burned by official order. This no doubt included many copies of the Scriptures that differed from the new “standard” which were favorable to non-Trinitarian views.
Also, while evaluating the textual and patristic evidence, it is important to note that several of the early church fathers stated that Matthew wrote his Gospel in “the language of the Jews” (Aramaic) and that it was later translated into Greek. So the Greek Matthew is not original to Matthew but is a later translation. The Aramaic (original) Matthew was in common use in Syria and among Christians who spoke Aramaic. Jerome stated that a copy of the Aramaic Mathew was in the Christian library at Caesarea. Eusebius was the curator of that very library, and had access to the Aramaic Matthew, copies of which have not survived intact. https://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Evolution_007.pdf
The idea of a “Trinity” (a third person) was first articulated by Tertullian after he converted to Montanism. Montanism itself (which was later condemned as heresy) began in the mid-second century and envisioned a “Trinity” of sorts. Montanus and his two female prophetesses “the Three” claimed to be possessed of the Father, the Logos, and the Paraclete. This was the first instance of a 3rd Person being implied. Tertullian was converted to this sect, and only afterwards wrote that the Paraclete was a 3rd Person, and then coined the term “Trinity.” (https://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Evolution_005.pdf)
While Montanus and his little cult were rejected by mainstream Christianity, Tertullian’s sanitized version of a subordinate Trinity became widespread and accepted much earlier than Nicaea. Many of the quotations by the ECFs of the longer version of Matt. 28:19 came after the idea of a subordinate Trinity (that the Father alone is eternal, but Son and Spirit originated at creation) became widely accepted. Nicaea was not the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity. It was the point in time when the force of the emperor was used in order to make Alexandrian Trinitarianism “official” and to destroy the non-trinitarian view of Arius, while other views (such as that of Justin, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tatian, etc) were not really deemed heretical until later creeds.
In case anyone would like to consider my original research tracing the development of the various views, it is contained in a series of articles under the heading “The Evolution of God” at the following link. https://4windsfellowships.net/articles.html
Hi, Carlos. Thanks for your comment, and sorry for the delay (Internet issues!).
That there are intrinsic, reasonable grounds for a certain amount of suspicion regarding the longer ending of Matthew 28:19 is testified to by the British, Trinitarian, Baptist scholar, Professor George Beasley-Murray in the standard work on baptism – “Baptism in the New Testament,” Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1962. He writes on page 83 (ibid.) :
“A whole group of exegetes and critics have recognized that the opening declaration of Matthew 28:18 demands a Christological statement to follow it : ” All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” leads us to expect as a consequence, “Go and make disciples unto Me among all nations, baptising them in My name, and teaching them to observe all things I commanded you.” In fact, the first and third clauses have that significance : It looks as though the second clause has been modified from a Christological to a Trinitarian formula in the interests of the liturgical tradition.”
Also, it is worth reiterating that earliest biblical manuscript evidence for the longer ending of Matthew 28:19 only comes from Greek Uncials of the late fourth century. Any liturgical modification of Matthew 28:19 by scribe(s), or even by Matthew himself [according to scholar Hans Kosmala], could well have happened very early on in the manuscript tradition.
Tim, could you please provide your sources for your statement that “Virtually all of Eusebius’ quotes of Matt. 28:19 using the short form “in My name” are from his works prior to the Council of Nicaea. Those with the longer (Trinitarian) statement are from his works after Nicaea, after he was reluctantly “persuaded” by Constantine (under false pretenses) to sign the Nicene Creed.”
And just to be clear, are you arguing Mat 28.19 is a Trinitarian corruption?
As for a so-called “original Hebrew Matthew” hypothesis it’s just that, a theory first proposed in the modern-era by the 20th century scholars like Conybeare I think.
David Maas presented what to me is it’s still the definite defense for this at one of our Theological Conferences years ago https://youtu.be/gfXF0Rja1Es
John, thanks for the Beasley-Murray quote but like the WBC that’s awfully sad to see!
But as John Adams said “they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” I am still a prisoner to. That is, namely the manuscript evidence which is overwhelmingly reflected by the earliest of Christian writings.
PS I’m looking to debate the matter online for the benefit of a wider audience. So, if you or Tim Warner or anyone else here is interested please contact me: carlos@thehumanjesus.org
The proof is in the Greek text we have today in the words “Holy Spirit”. In the Greek, the author writes “Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19. However, 4 other times in Matthew is the Holy Spirit spoken of (1:18, 1:20, 3:11 & 12:32), and in all of these the author puts “Spirit” in front of “Holy”, writing “Spirit Holy”, “Spirit is Holy” and “Spirit the Holy”.
So, it is highly unlikely that the original author would change to saying “Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19, when they said “Spirit Holy” in the rest of the text.
All of Matthew 28:11-20 is likely added later to make the story more dramatic and to counter claims that none of guards at the tomb had spoken of the resurrection.
The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity by Van de Sandt & van de Sandt, pp 287-89:
“…vestiges of the shorter version of Matt 28.19 are still to be found in various documents, including a Jewish-Christian source [see Pines, ‘The Jewish Christians’, 261], a Coptic text [‘The Discourse on Mary Theotokos by Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, describing her human origin and death’], and an ancient [Tiburtine] Sibylline prophecy [see Sibyllinische Weissaugungen, 316]. These independent witnesses to the ‘Eusebian’ conclusion of Matthew are substantial enough to at least suggest that this form enjoyed some popularity.”
The origin of Trinitarianism cannot be separated from Tertullian, who became a Montanist, and afterwards declared that there was a third Person, making a “Trinity.” This should also be understood in light of the practice of “trine baptism” (three dippings, each in the name of three Persons), which was first mentioned in Christian history by Tertullian in De Corona, ch. 4, as follows:
“If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon WE ARE THRICE IMMERSED, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.”
In my opinion, the alteration of Matthew 28:19 took place at some point in the late second century and was a product of the Montanist heresy. Tertullian sanitized the claims of Montanus and his two prophetesses, Pricilla, and Maximillia, (that they were possessed by the “Father, and Word, and the Paraclete”), and developed Subordinate Trinitarianism which gained wide acceptance. Even Irenaeus was not willing to shun the Montanists, though he was not himself involved.
BTW, not all scholars place the Didache (which mentions 3 pourings) as being written in the first or early second century. It is dated by some very early because of the kind of elder rule that it contains (before a single bishop took primacy among the elders. The Montanist sect had very different customs than the general Christian community. They were known for their asceticism, and claims of being the “spiritual” while the rest of Christianity was called by them “carnal” because they would not accept the prophesying of the “Paraclete” through the “new prophets.” The Didiche’s apparent primitive style of church government could be related to the Montanists. I would not be surprised in the least if the Didache turned out to be a work of the Montanists or a similar sect. If so, its date is probably late second or early third century.
This text came up recently in our house church as we are considering baptisms, so this article was very timely (and vey well written!). I am very thankful for the many men and women who have spent countless hours in prayer and delving into the scriptures to better understand the the mind of the Lord. This is another excellent article to consider. Thank you and God bless you.
Great article, thank you Sean.
There are also good arguments for Matthean posteriority (see Robert MacEwen, T&T Clark), which are bolstered by a corrective against misconstrual of Acts and quite what “baptising into Christ” meant, and the contrasts between John and Jesus’ baptisms. I.e. Matthew could well have had Mark, Luke and Acts before him. That’s my twopence.
“According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the ‘new and living way.’ And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that ‘there is none other name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’ (Acts 4:12).
This, of course, is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that replaces Christ from His position as the sacrificial Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation?
Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, “in my name.”
Assuming it to be genuine, what would the one name be that Father, Son, and Spirit go by? The baptisms in Acts were in the name of Jesus. If Father, Son, and Spirit were all subsumed under Yahweh, why is it not used? “In the name of” could just mean “by the authority of,” and since Jesus is God the Father’s authorized son and spokesman, baptizing in Jesus’ name is by the authority of God, and the authority of Jesus was demonstrated at his baptism by the visible sign of the Holy Spirit descending upon him while the Father audibly endorsed him. When Apollos was graduated from John’s baptism to baptism in Jesus’ name, he became aware of the accompanying ministry of the Holy Spirit (the spirit of the Father) and actually received the Holy Spirit — a characteristic difference between the old and new covenants. The Father’s promised gift of the Spirit was given to the risen Jesus to pour out upon the church.
If “authority” rather than “name” is not the answer, or at least the whole answer, might we find out what the “name” is in Mt. 28:19 by seeing what name was actually used in the Acts baptisms? The name “Jesus” (which is the name they used) means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation.” What better name to glorify the Father, who saves through his Son, and gives the gift of his spirit?
Therefore, perhaps an extended paraphrase something along these lines: “Go therefore and disciple all nations immersing them into the name [Jesus] of the Father (who chose the name for his Son that attributes salvation to the Father) and of the Son (whose name it is and through faith in whose resurrection Yahweh saves) and of the Holy Spirit ( who bears witness to the Son and is given to those who believe in the Son by the Father who promised to dwell by his spirit along with the Son in the hearts of those who believe). Thus, the name is Jesus, the name given by the Father to the Son and testified to by the Holy Spirit through signs, wonders, and the actual presence of the Father and Son in the hearts of believers through the Father’s own indwelling spirit.
History tells us that Eusebius (the supposed “corrupter” of the text) was a unitarian (Arian) and quotes the long form many times before and even after Nicaea [3]! See Contra Marcellum 1.1.9; 1.1.36; De Eccles. Theol. 3, 5; Syriac Theophany 4.8; Psalms 117.1-4; Theologia 3.5.22. And the short form (i.e., “baptized into the name of the Lord” or “in the name of Jesus”) after Nicea (In Praise of Constantine 16.8, 336 AD)!
So the often asked question (Why didn’t the early church of Acts obey Jesus and baptize according to Mat 28:19?) is founded on a false premise. That is, that the text is somehow Trinitarian. After all, most Trinitarians would not agree that “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” is a literal “name” for the 3-in-1 God!
You conclude your article with this sentence:
“Just because I do not believe the Trinity is true does not give me the right to rid the Bible of a verse like Matthew 28.19“
As your same article is also posted @ biblicalunitarian.com, presumably you do not take seriously into account a strained Unitarian interpretation of Matthew 28.19.
In any case, could you please explain the frase “baptiz[e the nations] in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” that the resurrected Jesus would have allegedly spoken to his Apostles, in a sense other than trinitarian, viz. NOT a recommendation to baptize in the name of the three “persons” of a triune god? BTW, it is entirely irrelevant whether these “persons” are subordinated or … er … co-equal.
According to New Testament scholar Everett Ferguson, the phrase ‘in the name of’ in Matthew 18:19 idiomatically means ‘to bring into a relationship with’ (‘The New Testament Church’; 1984). By contact with the holy Spirit (the power and personal presence of the One True God – Whom Jesus said was the Father – John 17:3;1 Cor. 2:10-11) Christians are bought into personal contact with the Father (the One true God; 1 Cor.8:6), and with His resurrected Son, Jesus [Yeshua] the Messiah (see especially John 20:31).
I think you will find that a footnote in the fairly recent Bible published by the Catholic Truth Society puts forward its view that the ‘triadic’ baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is probably a later Church liturgical addition.
it’s a forgery. scholarship is going to “prove” both sides of this issue. i say it’s a forgery because it’s conveniently insinuating that there are three persons. God Almighty isn’t three persons; Jesus knew this. therefore, he didn’t utter this statement. the proof is that the Apostles baptized in the name of the Lord/ in the name of Jesus, the one who gave the command. it appears they didn’t care or remember what words to say exactly (“Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”).
but even more interesting is the fact that NO words are recorded at Jesus’ baptism as far as a “formulaic expression” is concerned. he only said, “i should be baptized by you,” and Jesus responded, “suffer it to be so; i must fulfill all righteousness.” John then immersed him. in what name? what liturgical utterance was there? NONE.
it’s then my view that NOTHING has to be said. just immerse them. done. easy.
i’ve been baptized in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” but i can’t wait to be baptized anew without any allusion to a false deity like the trinity.
Do we believe John the Baptist’s version contained all three? That must have been confusing to J. the B. and therefore illegimate without stating all three names. Obviously that statement is somewhat absurd. However, I will tell you that the formula for baptism may be different than we all understand. What are your thoughts about the Shem Tov Hebrew version of Matthew 28:19 that doesn’t really speak of baptism at all??
In all the quotes about baptism, you mentioned using the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit you left out the most important scripture Acts 2:38 (LEB)
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As for Matthew 28:18-19: I go with this translation: And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
Is this why Peter says: “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Acts 2:38]. Is there any place in the gospels where Jesus tells his disciples to baptize people in his name.
What about Romans 6:4 (LEB): Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, so that just as the Messiah was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we may live a new way of life. I wasn’t buried with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit at baptism I was buried with the Messiah through baptism unto death! Again, to repeat: Romans 6:3 (LEB): Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into the Messiah Jesus were baptized into his death? I wasn’t baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit at baptism, I was baptized into the Messiah Jesus.
Romans 6:6 (LEB): knowing this, that our old man was crucified together with him, so that the body of sin may be done away with, that we may no longer be enslaved to sin. My old man wasn’t crucified together with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it was crucified with the Messiah Jesus.
Acts 22:16 (LEB): And now why are you delaying? Get up, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name!’ At baptism i washed away my sins, calling in the name of the Messiah Jesus, not in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!
Acts 10:48 (LEB): So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah. Then they asked him to stay for several days. Oh no, he should have baptized them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit??? Not!
1 Corinthians 1:13 (LEB): Has the Messiah been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Romans 6:8 (LEB): Now if we died with the Messiah [when we were baptized], we believe that we will also live with him,
Introduction
Hi , so why do seemingly knowledgeable people get re baptized in the name of Jesus? Does it matter how baptizing is done. Should we do it with all the instructions or texts including both?
Good questions.
The text is neither trinitarian, nor a “formula.”
The Trinity is defined as “one God in 3 Persons,” this is not what the text states, let alone teaches.
And the Apostolic tradition of baptizing “in the name of Jesus” only would imply that they disobeyed Jesus’ “formula” (a legal, fixed form of words).
This obviously cannot be the case.
Jesus said e go baptize in the name of father son and holy spirit so disciple baptize in Jesus name
The Apostles are simply describing the one indivisible experience that the would-be convert has after obeying Jesus’ commandment to be baptized. This was to be a public demonstration of their Conversion-Baptism-Integration into the one body that is the Christian church community.
Also, note that at Pentecost, after the Apostles were baptized by God’s spirit, they preached to the people who “were pierced to the heart” and then asked “What should we do, brothers?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2.38
This is obviously a reference to water baptism.
Peter did not say “be baptized in holy spirit so you can receive holy spirit.”
Actually what he says is “Baptism…saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Lastly, like Matthew, Paul uses 3 different terms pointing to one indivisible experience of: Conversion-Baptism-Integration into the church (1Cor. 6.11; Titus 3.5-6; 2Cor 1.21-22; 3.14; 1Pet 1.1-2; Heb. 9.14.
Yes – Matthew 28:19 can be interpreted in a non-trinitarian manner, but there is a stylistic argument that supports the view that the longer ending of Matthew 28:19 may not be original. To quote Donald A. Hagner in the ‘Word Bible Commentary’ (1995), Vol. 33b, Matthew 14-28, pp. 887-88 :
” The threefold name (at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed …seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day ..There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read ‘make disciples in my name’ [cf. Luke 24:47]. This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation.”
John, that’s very bad from the WBC in light of the fact that Eusebius quotes both the so-called “short” and “long form” of the text. As Dr. Peter Head in his book “Christology and the Synoptic Problem” (1997, 212f.) notes:
“The omission of the phrase can be explained as due to Eusebius’ tendency to abbreviate, as Eusebius elsewhere often cites the longer form [Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; Theophania 4.8]. The shorter reading ‘in my name’ could have been formed as a result of harmonizing Luke 24.47 and Mark 16.17 (as seems to occur in Psalms 59.9). Note that Eusebius also alludes to this passage without using either ‘in my name’ or the full clause [Demonstratio 1.3, 4, 6; Psalms 46.4; 95.3; 144.9; Isaiah 41.10; Theophania 3.4; Theologia III.3]. See further Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning, pp. 151-175; Schaberg, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, pp. 27-29 (who refer to earlier studies).
And there is zero manuscript copy evidence to support “an interpolation.”
Xavier,
I have examined all of the quotes from Eusebius in their larger contexts, as well as Eusebius’ own theology regarding God and His Son. Eusebius was neither Arian nor Trinitarian prior to Nicaea. His views were essentially the same as Justin’s in his Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tatian, and with Tertullian (before he was converted to Montanism). Like these, Eusebius believed that the Son was literally “begotten” out of God at the beginning of creation, was God’s agent in creation, and was (in his pre-human state) of the same essence as God simply because kind begets like kind. (He disagreed with the Arians on this point. They claimed that the Son was created at the beginning of creation and of a different essence which was mutable). The “Son of God” was later fully transformed (changed) into the “Son of Man” (a human being). Virtually all of Eusebius’ quotes of Matt. 28:19 using the short form “in My name” are from his works prior to the Council of Nicaea. Those with the longer (Trinitarian) statement are from his works after Nicaea, after he was reluctantly “persuaded” by Constantine (under false pretenses) to sign the Nicene Creed. He was then honored by Constantine and charged by him to produce 50 standard copies of the NT which were to become the “authorized” version from which copies were to be made. It is also important to know that once the Council of Nicaea took place, the works of Arius and those with similar views were confiscated and burned by official order. This no doubt included many copies of the Scriptures that differed from the new “standard” which were favorable to non-Trinitarian views.
Also, while evaluating the textual and patristic evidence, it is important to note that several of the early church fathers stated that Matthew wrote his Gospel in “the language of the Jews” (Aramaic) and that it was later translated into Greek. So the Greek Matthew is not original to Matthew but is a later translation. The Aramaic (original) Matthew was in common use in Syria and among Christians who spoke Aramaic. Jerome stated that a copy of the Aramaic Mathew was in the Christian library at Caesarea. Eusebius was the curator of that very library, and had access to the Aramaic Matthew, copies of which have not survived intact. https://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Evolution_007.pdf
The idea of a “Trinity” (a third person) was first articulated by Tertullian after he converted to Montanism. Montanism itself (which was later condemned as heresy) began in the mid-second century and envisioned a “Trinity” of sorts. Montanus and his two female prophetesses “the Three” claimed to be possessed of the Father, the Logos, and the Paraclete. This was the first instance of a 3rd Person being implied. Tertullian was converted to this sect, and only afterwards wrote that the Paraclete was a 3rd Person, and then coined the term “Trinity.” (https://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Evolution_005.pdf)
While Montanus and his little cult were rejected by mainstream Christianity, Tertullian’s sanitized version of a subordinate Trinity became widespread and accepted much earlier than Nicaea. Many of the quotations by the ECFs of the longer version of Matt. 28:19 came after the idea of a subordinate Trinity (that the Father alone is eternal, but Son and Spirit originated at creation) became widely accepted. Nicaea was not the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity. It was the point in time when the force of the emperor was used in order to make Alexandrian Trinitarianism “official” and to destroy the non-trinitarian view of Arius, while other views (such as that of Justin, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tatian, etc) were not really deemed heretical until later creeds.
In case anyone would like to consider my original research tracing the development of the various views, it is contained in a series of articles under the heading “The Evolution of God” at the following link. https://4windsfellowships.net/articles.html
Hi, Carlos. Thanks for your comment, and sorry for the delay (Internet issues!).
That there are intrinsic, reasonable grounds for a certain amount of suspicion regarding the longer ending of Matthew 28:19 is testified to by the British, Trinitarian, Baptist scholar, Professor George Beasley-Murray in the standard work on baptism – “Baptism in the New Testament,” Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1962. He writes on page 83 (ibid.) :
“A whole group of exegetes and critics have recognized that the opening declaration of Matthew 28:18 demands a Christological statement to follow it : ” All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” leads us to expect as a consequence, “Go and make disciples unto Me among all nations, baptising them in My name, and teaching them to observe all things I commanded you.” In fact, the first and third clauses have that significance : It looks as though the second clause has been modified from a Christological to a Trinitarian formula in the interests of the liturgical tradition.”
Also, it is worth reiterating that earliest biblical manuscript evidence for the longer ending of Matthew 28:19 only comes from Greek Uncials of the late fourth century. Any liturgical modification of Matthew 28:19 by scribe(s), or even by Matthew himself [according to scholar Hans Kosmala], could well have happened very early on in the manuscript tradition.
Tim, could you please provide your sources for your statement that “Virtually all of Eusebius’ quotes of Matt. 28:19 using the short form “in My name” are from his works prior to the Council of Nicaea. Those with the longer (Trinitarian) statement are from his works after Nicaea, after he was reluctantly “persuaded” by Constantine (under false pretenses) to sign the Nicene Creed.”
And just to be clear, are you arguing Mat 28.19 is a Trinitarian corruption?
As for a so-called “original Hebrew Matthew” hypothesis it’s just that, a theory first proposed in the modern-era by the 20th century scholars like Conybeare I think.
David Maas presented what to me is it’s still the definite defense for this at one of our Theological Conferences years ago https://youtu.be/gfXF0Rja1Es
John, thanks for the Beasley-Murray quote but like the WBC that’s awfully sad to see!
But as John Adams said “they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” I am still a prisoner to. That is, namely the manuscript evidence which is overwhelmingly reflected by the earliest of Christian writings.
PS I’m looking to debate the matter online for the benefit of a wider audience. So, if you or Tim Warner or anyone else here is interested please contact me: carlos@thehumanjesus.org
The proof is in the Greek text we have today in the words “Holy Spirit”. In the Greek, the author writes “Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19. However, 4 other times in Matthew is the Holy Spirit spoken of (1:18, 1:20, 3:11 & 12:32), and in all of these the author puts “Spirit” in front of “Holy”, writing “Spirit Holy”, “Spirit is Holy” and “Spirit the Holy”.
So, it is highly unlikely that the original author would change to saying “Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19, when they said “Spirit Holy” in the rest of the text.
All of Matthew 28:11-20 is likely added later to make the story more dramatic and to counter claims that none of guards at the tomb had spoken of the resurrection.
For whatever it’s worth, I just found this.
The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity by Van de Sandt & van de Sandt, pp 287-89:
“…vestiges of the shorter version of Matt 28.19 are still to be found in various documents, including a Jewish-Christian source [see Pines, ‘The Jewish Christians’, 261], a Coptic text [‘The Discourse on Mary Theotokos by Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, describing her human origin and death’], and an ancient [Tiburtine] Sibylline prophecy [see Sibyllinische Weissaugungen, 316]. These independent witnesses to the ‘Eusebian’ conclusion of Matthew are substantial enough to at least suggest that this form enjoyed some popularity.”
Carlos,
The origin of Trinitarianism cannot be separated from Tertullian, who became a Montanist, and afterwards declared that there was a third Person, making a “Trinity.” This should also be understood in light of the practice of “trine baptism” (three dippings, each in the name of three Persons), which was first mentioned in Christian history by Tertullian in De Corona, ch. 4, as follows:
“If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon WE ARE THRICE IMMERSED, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.”
In my opinion, the alteration of Matthew 28:19 took place at some point in the late second century and was a product of the Montanist heresy. Tertullian sanitized the claims of Montanus and his two prophetesses, Pricilla, and Maximillia, (that they were possessed by the “Father, and Word, and the Paraclete”), and developed Subordinate Trinitarianism which gained wide acceptance. Even Irenaeus was not willing to shun the Montanists, though he was not himself involved.
BTW, not all scholars place the Didache (which mentions 3 pourings) as being written in the first or early second century. It is dated by some very early because of the kind of elder rule that it contains (before a single bishop took primacy among the elders. The Montanist sect had very different customs than the general Christian community. They were known for their asceticism, and claims of being the “spiritual” while the rest of Christianity was called by them “carnal” because they would not accept the prophesying of the “Paraclete” through the “new prophets.” The Didiche’s apparent primitive style of church government could be related to the Montanists. I would not be surprised in the least if the Didache turned out to be a work of the Montanists or a similar sect. If so, its date is probably late second or early third century.
This text came up recently in our house church as we are considering baptisms, so this article was very timely (and vey well written!). I am very thankful for the many men and women who have spent countless hours in prayer and delving into the scriptures to better understand the the mind of the Lord. This is another excellent article to consider. Thank you and God bless you.
Worthwhile conversation on water vs spirit baptism and Matthew 28.19: https://youtu.be/dd_ax9DW_i0
Great article, thank you Sean.
There are also good arguments for Matthean posteriority (see Robert MacEwen, T&T Clark), which are bolstered by a corrective against misconstrual of Acts and quite what “baptising into Christ” meant, and the contrasts between John and Jesus’ baptisms. I.e. Matthew could well have had Mark, Luke and Acts before him. That’s my twopence.
If anyone wants to see more of my developments on these contrasts, a summary is available here on my blog (apologies for self-promotion!):http://faithandscripture.blogspot.fr/2017/08/it-all-started-with-b-p-t-i-s-m-4-star.html
Some excerpts from this investigative research:
“According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the ‘new and living way.’ And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that ‘there is none other name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’ (Acts 4:12).
This, of course, is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that replaces Christ from His position as the sacrificial Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation?
Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, “in my name.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1461121/posts
Sean, here are some of my thoughts on this question which I posted on OneGodWorship.com at the post on the same subject:
There seem to be some reasons to question the triadal text of Mt. 28:19. However, I think Sean Finnegan’s podcast on the question is a good look at the case for genuineness. https://restitutio.org/2018/04/25/is-matthew-28-19-a-forgery/
Assuming it to be genuine, what would the one name be that Father, Son, and Spirit go by? The baptisms in Acts were in the name of Jesus. If Father, Son, and Spirit were all subsumed under Yahweh, why is it not used? “In the name of” could just mean “by the authority of,” and since Jesus is God the Father’s authorized son and spokesman, baptizing in Jesus’ name is by the authority of God, and the authority of Jesus was demonstrated at his baptism by the visible sign of the Holy Spirit descending upon him while the Father audibly endorsed him. When Apollos was graduated from John’s baptism to baptism in Jesus’ name, he became aware of the accompanying ministry of the Holy Spirit (the spirit of the Father) and actually received the Holy Spirit — a characteristic difference between the old and new covenants. The Father’s promised gift of the Spirit was given to the risen Jesus to pour out upon the church.
If “authority” rather than “name” is not the answer, or at least the whole answer, might we find out what the “name” is in Mt. 28:19 by seeing what name was actually used in the Acts baptisms? The name “Jesus” (which is the name they used) means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation.” What better name to glorify the Father, who saves through his Son, and gives the gift of his spirit?
Therefore, perhaps an extended paraphrase something along these lines: “Go therefore and disciple all nations immersing them into the name [Jesus] of the Father (who chose the name for his Son that attributes salvation to the Father) and of the Son (whose name it is and through faith in whose resurrection Yahweh saves) and of the Holy Spirit ( who bears witness to the Son and is given to those who believe in the Son by the Father who promised to dwell by his spirit along with the Son in the hearts of those who believe). Thus, the name is Jesus, the name given by the Father to the Son and testified to by the Holy Spirit through signs, wonders, and the actual presence of the Father and Son in the hearts of believers through the Father’s own indwelling spirit.
Leave a Reply
History tells us that Eusebius (the supposed “corrupter” of the text) was a unitarian (Arian) and quotes the long form many times before and even after Nicaea [3]! See Contra Marcellum 1.1.9; 1.1.36; De Eccles. Theol. 3, 5; Syriac Theophany 4.8; Psalms 117.1-4; Theologia 3.5.22. And the short form (i.e., “baptized into the name of the Lord” or “in the name of Jesus”) after Nicea (In Praise of Constantine 16.8, 336 AD)!
So the often asked question (Why didn’t the early church of Acts obey Jesus and baptize according to Mat 28:19?) is founded on a false premise. That is, that the text is somehow Trinitarian. After all, most Trinitarians would not agree that “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” is a literal “name” for the 3-in-1 God!
@ Sean
You conclude your article with this sentence:
“Just because I do not believe the Trinity is true does not give me the right to rid the Bible of a verse like Matthew 28.19“
As your same article is also posted @ biblicalunitarian.com, presumably you do not take seriously into account a strained Unitarian interpretation of Matthew 28.19.
In any case, could you please explain the frase “baptiz[e the nations] in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” that the resurrected Jesus would have allegedly spoken to his Apostles, in a sense other than trinitarian, viz. NOT a recommendation to baptize in the name of the three “persons” of a triune god? BTW, it is entirely irrelevant whether these “persons” are subordinated or … er … co-equal.
Thank you.
Dear Miguel;
According to New Testament scholar Everett Ferguson, the phrase ‘in the name of’ in Matthew 18:19 idiomatically means ‘to bring into a relationship with’ (‘The New Testament Church’; 1984). By contact with the holy Spirit (the power and personal presence of the One True God – Whom Jesus said was the Father – John 17:3;1 Cor. 2:10-11) Christians are bought into personal contact with the Father (the One true God; 1 Cor.8:6), and with His resurrected Son, Jesus [Yeshua] the Messiah (see especially John 20:31).
I think you will find that a footnote in the fairly recent Bible published by the Catholic Truth Society puts forward its view that the ‘triadic’ baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is probably a later Church liturgical addition.
God bless you.
Thoughts? https://synopsa.pl/czy-obecnosc-slow-w-imie-ojca-i-syna-i-ducha-swietego-mt-2819-w-dostepnych-manuskryptach-niezbicie-dowodzi-ich-oryginalnosci/
it’s a forgery. scholarship is going to “prove” both sides of this issue. i say it’s a forgery because it’s conveniently insinuating that there are three persons. God Almighty isn’t three persons; Jesus knew this. therefore, he didn’t utter this statement. the proof is that the Apostles baptized in the name of the Lord/ in the name of Jesus, the one who gave the command. it appears they didn’t care or remember what words to say exactly (“Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”).
but even more interesting is the fact that NO words are recorded at Jesus’ baptism as far as a “formulaic expression” is concerned. he only said, “i should be baptized by you,” and Jesus responded, “suffer it to be so; i must fulfill all righteousness.” John then immersed him. in what name? what liturgical utterance was there? NONE.
it’s then my view that NOTHING has to be said. just immerse them. done. easy.
i’ve been baptized in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” but i can’t wait to be baptized anew without any allusion to a false deity like the trinity.
Do we believe John the Baptist’s version contained all three? That must have been confusing to J. the B. and therefore illegimate without stating all three names. Obviously that statement is somewhat absurd. However, I will tell you that the formula for baptism may be different than we all understand. What are your thoughts about the Shem Tov Hebrew version of Matthew 28:19 that doesn’t really speak of baptism at all??
In all the quotes about baptism, you mentioned using the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit you left out the most important scripture Acts 2:38 (LEB)
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As for Matthew 28:18-19: I go with this translation: And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
Is this why Peter says: “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Acts 2:38]. Is there any place in the gospels where Jesus tells his disciples to baptize people in his name.
What about Romans 6:4 (LEB): Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, so that just as the Messiah was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we may live a new way of life. I wasn’t buried with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit at baptism I was buried with the Messiah through baptism unto death! Again, to repeat: Romans 6:3 (LEB): Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into the Messiah Jesus were baptized into his death? I wasn’t baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit at baptism, I was baptized into the Messiah Jesus.
Romans 6:6 (LEB): knowing this, that our old man was crucified together with him, so that the body of sin may be done away with, that we may no longer be enslaved to sin. My old man wasn’t crucified together with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it was crucified with the Messiah Jesus.
Acts 22:16 (LEB): And now why are you delaying? Get up, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name!’ At baptism i washed away my sins, calling in the name of the Messiah Jesus, not in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!
Acts 10:48 (LEB): So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah. Then they asked him to stay for several days. Oh no, he should have baptized them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit??? Not!
1 Corinthians 1:13 (LEB): Has the Messiah been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Romans 6:8 (LEB): Now if we died with the Messiah [when we were baptized], we believe that we will also live with him,