Baptism - Is the Text of Matt. 28:19 Original?

[_Royal Oddball 2:9]

The following articles set forth the idea that the original text of Matthew 28:19 was hijacked and twisted by the RCC in the second century to read what it does today, namely from "baptizing them in my name" to "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudie ... tt2819.htm

A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudie ... willis.htm

Has anyone else heard of this? If it's true, would/should it change the way evangelicals traditionally baptize?

[Guest]

The following articles set forth the idea that the original text of Matthew 28:19 was hijacked and twisted by the RCC in the second century to read what it does today, namely from "baptizing them in my name" to "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudie ... tt2819.htm

A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudie ... willis.htm

Has anyone else heard of this? If it's true, would/should it change the way evangelicals traditionally baptize?

I personally believe that the passage is original - but even if it wasn't, that would change nothing for me.

[Guest]

I agree, it is probably a forgery. Not because it does not fit my theology but because it does not fit with the rest of scripture.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... age&pid=77

[_Royal Oddball 2:9]

It is worth noting that of all the baptisms recorded in the NT, all of them were done "in the name of Jesus" or "calling upon the name of the Lord."

I was raised Oneness Pentecostal, and this is the one lone belief I've retained among all the false doctrine I rejected when I left that movement. They make a big deal out of the way a person is baptized; I don't. I think we should place our faith in who is baptizing us (Christ) rather than what is said over the baptism. However, I do believe baptism "is Jesus name" is more scripturally accurate.

[Guest]

Acts 2:38," Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Acts 8:16, "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 22:16, "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Let's take a look at what is going on in the verses. The phrase, "in the name of the Lord" is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!". We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism "in Jesus' name." To baptise in Jesus' name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. Consider the following:

"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by this name this man stands here before you in good health" (Acts 4:7-10). See also the following verses:

Acts 4:17-18, "But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus."

Acts 5:28, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us."

Acts 5:40, "And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them."

Acts 8:12, "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike."

Acts 9:27-28, "But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord."

Acts 16:18, "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour."

Matt Slick: We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority. This is particularly clarified Acts 16:18 above. Let's look at it again. "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." We also see that when people were being baptized that they did it calling on Jesus' name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15).

Therefore, people are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula "In Jesus name." Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," (Matt. 28:19).

[Guest]

About Matthew 28:19, It is kinda short.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... int&sid=50
For those that are truly interested, May be the same information as the link listed above

[_Royal Oddball 2:9]

Um, I'm a little confused, SoaringEagle. First you list a bunch of scriptures where you show all the apostles did everything, including baptism, by the authority of Jesus' name. Then you state that those who demand baptism be done in Jesus' name are in error.

Therefore, people are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula "In Jesus name."

Are you saying the apostles were in error? Are you saying that those who prefer to baptize in Jesus' name (as I do) are in error for demanding "a formula" even though the apostles obviously did not baptize any other way?

Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," (Matt. 28:19).

Which brings us back to square one, because this topic is about whether or not the text of Matt. 28:19 is even original. If it isn't, that would mean that Jesus never commanded us to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Jesusfollower and I do not think the text is original. Do you have any thoughts about this at all?

[Guest]

People are reading too much into this passage.

I think there are some Christians who want to rule it out because they believe it supports Trinitarianism.

But it's a perfectly legitimate passage! Just accept it at face value, people!

[_Royal Oddball 2:9]

Okay, I don't want to give this subject more emphasis than it deserves. I believe we all know that Jesus instructs us to make disciples and baptize them and those are the important things.

I simply posted this post because I was curious if anyone else had heard anything along the lines of Matthew 28:19 not being part of the original text and what their thoughts on that might be, not to get into a debate over what needs to be said over a baptism. I'm not necessarily against a debate on that topic, but I've already stated above it's on whom we place our faith during baptism that's most important.

I think there are some Christians who want to rule it out because they believe it supports Trinitarianism.

I'll agree with that statement. Oneness Pentecostals, the denomination in which I was raised, have a vested interest in getting rid of that scripture. However, considering the numerous primary sources who admit the text isn't original, it's my opinion that they do have a solid case. (And I assure you I'm the last person to be sympathetic with or biased towards their cause.)

However, conversely (and this has always confused me) the traditional wording of Matt. 28:19 has always been used as their greatest "proof" of their stance that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." In other words, Oneness Pentecostals contend that either wording is essentially saying the same thing. I don't.

Evangelion, according to the articles I linked to on my initial post, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 263, states "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Now, I don't have a Catholic Encyclopedia here to verify the accuracy of that statement, but assuming the truthfulness of the author, do you have any thoughts on the bolded statement above?

[Guest]

Okay, I don't want to give this subject more emphasis than it deserves. I believe we all know that Jesus instructs us to make disciples and baptize them and those are the important things.

Agreed.

I simply posted this post because I was curious if anyone else had heard anything along the lines of Matthew 28:19 not being part of the original text and what their thoughts on that might be, not to get into a debate over what needs to be said over a baptism. I'm not necessarily against a debate on that topic, but I've already stated above it's where we place our faith during baptism that's most important, not what "formula" is used, whether the "Jesus-name" formula, or the "Father-Son-Holy Spirit" formula.

Agreed.

I think there are some Christians who want to rule it out because they believe it supports Trinitarianism.

I'll agree with that statement. Oneness Pentecostals, the denomination in which I was raised, have a vested interest in getting rid of that scripture. However, considering the numerous primary sources who admit the text isn't original, it's my opinion that they do have a solid case. (And I assure you I'm the last person to be sympathetic with or biased towards their cause.)

Fair enough.

However, conversely (and this has always confused me) the traditional wording of Matt. 28:19 has always been used as their greatest "proof" of their stance that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." In other words, Oneness Pentecostals contend that either wording is essentially saying the same thing. I don't.

Interesting.

I believe that the passage is legitimate, but as I've said before, there would be no impact on my theology if it was removed.

Additionally, I know of no reason for rejecting it on textual grounds; all the evidence points towards its veracity.