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

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:10 am

Jesusfollower wrote:Dude, yes there is
Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

2. If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the “name of Jesus Christ,” i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively “baptized.” “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38). “They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.

3. Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and “Holy Spirit” together make “one God.” This verse refers to three, but never says they are “one.” The three things this verse refers to are: God the Father, the Lord Jesus and the power of holy spirit (We say “holy spirit” instead of “Holy Spirit” because we believe that this verse is referring to God’s gift of holy spirit that is born inside each believer. It is lower case because it refers to the gift of God and not God. The original Greek texts were all written in what scholars call “uncial script,” which uses all capital letters. Thus, although we today make a distinction between “Spirit” and “spirit,” in the originals every use was just “SPIRIT.” Whether or not it should be capitalized is a translator’s decision, based on the context of the verse. For more on the form of the early texts, see the note on Heb. 1:8).

It should be clear that three separate things do not make “one God.” Morgridge writes:

No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever. The truth of this has been admitted by every Trinitarian who ever wrote or preached on the subject.”

4. It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2).

5. It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one “name,” so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to “confound the persons” (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one “name,” especially since no such “name” is ever given in Scripture (“God” is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three “persons,” then it should use the word “names.” There is a much better explanation for why “name” is used in the singular.

A study of the culture and language shows that the word “name” stood for “authority.” Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the “name” (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.

6. In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier. [For further study on the subject of baptism, read “Two Baptisms: Which Is Which?”]

Morgridge, pp. 13-15, 28, 98-101

Norton, pp. 215-218

Racovian Catechism, pp. 36-39

Snedeker, pp. 109-115
This completely ignores the evidence which I have already posted, and offers no proof for the claim that Matthew 28:19 was added or modified by Trinitarians.

However, it does make one excellent point:
Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity.
And really, that's all you need to say! Once we understand this, there is no point in trying to argue that the verse is not legitimate because it's a moot point.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Royal Oddball 2:9
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Beaumont, TX

Post by _Royal Oddball 2:9 » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:51 am

Evangelion, I did not address the subject of Philip and the eunuch because I did not quite see your point. The eunuch confessed he believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Most of those who prefer to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ agree that as long as the name Jesus is spoken as a statement of faith prior to or during the baptism by one or more parties, that is sufficient.

As far as the Didache goes, I'd have to ask if we have an original of the early text or a later copy. Considering your extensive knowledge of church history, do you know the dating of the earliest surviving copy we have of the Didache and the original Greek texts of scripture? It's possible that there were differing copies of the text floating around in the days of the church fathers, which would influence the quoting of the writers you mentioned. Admittedly, it's perhaps a stretch to say that, but it's not an impossibility, at least not to my understanding.
Evangelion wrote: To me, the real stretch is trying to deny that it is a legitimate part of Scripture. That's an uphill battle in a snowstorm! :p
I'm not trying to deny it's a legitimate part of scripture. I just think there's enough support for the hypothesis that "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" replaced "in my name" to give it some consideration. I freely admit the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making this claim, and that it will probably never be proven to the satisfaction of the doubtful in the absence of an early original text (which are most likely long gone).

BTW, I don't actually make that claim, although I do believe it could be true. I consider it a legitimate way to resolve what I see as a dichotomy between divine command and apostolic precedence. Evangelion, I consider your stance that the baptisms are equivalent to be another legitimate way to resolve it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was curious as to what Steve G thought about Matt. 28:19, so I listened to his commentary on it this morning. His stance agrees with yours, Evangelion, that the seemingly different phraseologies are equivalent, but his reasoning supporting that statement was quite surprising to me.

If I understood him correctly, he points out that Jesus used the word "name" rather than "names" in Matt. 28:19, so the apostles seemed to believe that "Jesus" was a legitimate name for both the Father and the Holy Spirit. I found that interesting and surprising because that's very similar to the Oneness Pentecostal claim that, "There is one God, and His name is Jesus." I have never heard any Trinitarian agree along those lines. In fact, when I was Oneness Pentecostal, I read an article by a Presbyterian minister who went to great lengths to show that Jesus couldn't be the name of God. Very interesting!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. I Peter 2:9

_Jesusfollower
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: NW

Post by _Jesusfollower » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:51 am

Evangelion, I think you are the one ignoring evidence, did you see the quotes from Eusebius? Constantine?

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

I think you can do and ignore anything you like in favor of your position, and to continue to practice what you have.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:37 pm

Jesusfollower wrote:Evangelion, I think you are the one ignoring evidence, did you see the quotes from Eusebius? Constantine?
Yeah, but so what? How are these suppsed to assist your argument? They do not prove that Eusebius invented the clause in order to support Trinitarianism!
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
Dude, Eusebius was an Arian sympathiser! He had no interest in supporting the Trinitarian position! :eek:
I think you can do and ignore anything you like in favor of your position, and to continue to practice what you have.
I think you don't know me well enough to judge me in this way.

I doubt that you even know what I believe.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:58 pm

Royal Oddball 2:9 wrote:Evangelion, I did not address the subject of Philip and the eunuch because I did not quite see your point. The eunuch confessed he believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Most of those who prefer to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ agree that as long as the name Jesus is spoken as a statement of faith prior to or during the baptism by one or more parties, that is sufficient.
They might well believe this, but where is it written in the NT? :?:
As far as the Didache goes, I'd have to ask if we have an original of the early text or a later copy. Considering your extensive knowledge of church history, do you know the dating of the earliest surviving copy we have of the Didache and the original Greek texts of scripture? It's possible that there were differing copies of the text floating around in the days of the church fathers, which would influence the quoting of the writers you mentioned. Admittedly, it's perhaps a stretch to say that, but it's not an impossibility, at least not to my understanding.
No, we don't have a copy of the original text. As far as I'm aware, the earliest we have is from AD 1056; very late, considering the obvious age of the material itself.

This is not very surprising though, since the church's emphasis on the preservation of Scripture tended to result in less careful treatment of other texts.

The Didache was known to the early Church Fathers, many of whom either refer to it in their writings or quote from it directly. Eusebius, Origen, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Rufinus (to name a few) all fall into one or more of these categories.

The Didache also appears to have been read by the authors of The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas, both of which contain material either derived from the Didache or purloined from it.

Elements of the Didache are also found in the writings of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Cyprian, and Theophilus of Antioch.

It is the Didache which provides us with textual evidence for the closing paragaph of the Lord's Prayer:
  • Matthew 6:13
    And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
The highlighted clause is absent from several key early NT manuscripts (and many of the early Church Fathers), but appears in the Didache, from which we know it is an early and legitimate part of the text.

Finally, we know from the Didache's description of the church that it is referring to a very ancient time indeed.

The ministry is twofold (elders and "prophets"); the Holy Spirit gifts are still active, and the primary sources for its teaching are (a) a Jewish document known as The Two Wayes (which constitutes the first section of the Didache and (b) the Gospels and apostolic epistles (sometimes quoted word-for-word, but often abridged or summarised.)

All of this reflects a period in which Jewish-Christian relations were still relatively cordial, Jewish and Christian teaching was still relatively compatible, and Jewish writings in particular, were still well-respected by the church.

The only era to which all of this applies without extensive qualification, is the 1st Century AD.
I'm not trying to deny it's a legitimate part of scripture. I just think there's enough support for the hypothesis that "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" replaced "in my name" to give it some consideration. I freely admit the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making this claim, and that it will probably never be proven to the satisfaction of the doubtful in the absence of an early original text (which are most likely long gone).
Fair enough.
BTW, I don't actually make that claim, although I do believe it could be true. I consider it a legitimate way to resolve what I see as a dichotomy between divine command and apostolic precedence. Evangelion, I consider your stance that the baptisms are equivalent to be another legitimate way to resolve it.
Cheers, thanks for that. :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was curious as to what Steve G thought about Matt. 28:19, so I listened to his commentary on it this morning. His stance agrees with yours, Evangelion, that the seemingly different phraseologies are equivalent, but his reasoning supporting that statement was quite surprising to me.

If I understood him correctly, he points out that Jesus used the word "name" rather than "names" in Matt. 28:19, so the apostles seemed to believe that "Jesus" was a legitimate name for both the Father and the Holy Spirit. I found that interesting and surprising because that's very similar to the Oneness Pentecostal claim that, "There is one God, and His name is Jesus." I have never heard any Trinitarian agree along those lines. In fact, when I was Oneness Pentecostal, I read an article by a Presbyterian minister who went to great lengths to show that Jesus couldn't be the name of God. Very interesting!
That is indeed surprising, and I would be very interested to see the reasoning behind it. :?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Royal Oddball 2:9
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Beaumont, TX

Post by _Royal Oddball 2:9 » Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:51 pm

Evangelion wrote: They might well believe this, but where is it written in the NT? :?:
I believed I've already discussed apostolic precedence from where Oneness Pentecostals form their doctrine on baptism. None of them feel that the eunuch's baptism is contrary to their beliefs.
Evangelion wrote: All of this reflects a period in which Jewish-Christian relations were still relatively cordial, Jewish and Christian teaching was still relatively compatible, and Jewish writings in particular, were still well-respected by the church.

The only era to which all of this applies without extensive qualification, is the 1st Century AD.
I'm not sure I can accept your dating of the Didache. Most scholars seem to believe it was written early second century, circa 120 AD. Some even believe it's possible the Didache predated Matthew!
Evangelion wrote: That is indeed surprising, and I would be very interested to see the reasoning behind it. :?
Well, I suppose you could go listen to his commentary . . .
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. I Peter 2:9

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:26 pm

Royal Oddball 2:9 wrote:
Evangelion wrote: They might well believe this, but where is it written in the NT? :?:
I believed I've already discussed apostolic precedence from where Oneness Pentecostals form their doctrine on baptism. None of them feel that the eunuch's baptism is contrary to their beliefs.
Yeah, but what I want to know is how they arrive at their position in the first place. What is their Scriptural basis?
Evangelion wrote: All of this reflects a period in which Jewish-Christian relations were still relatively cordial, Jewish and Christian teaching was still relatively compatible, and Jewish writings in particular, were still well-respected by the church.

The only era to which all of this applies without extensive qualification, is the 1st Century AD.
I'm not sure I can accept your dating of the Didache.
Why not?
Most scholars seem to believe it was written early second century, circa 120 AD.
"Most scholars"? I think you will find that "most scholars" are simply divided on the date. Some favour the 2nd Century; others favour the 1st. In my experience, those who favour the 1st outnumber those who favour the 2nd.

In any case, this is somewhat beside the point - which is that the Didache contains the formula of Matthew 24:19, thereby proving that this is an early and legitimate passage of Scripture.
Some even believe it's possible the Didache predated Matthew!
That is impossible, since the Didache quotes from Christ's Sermon on the Mount.

So unless people want to suggest that someone wrote down a few scraps of the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew copied them into his Gospel, it seems pretty clear that Matthew pre-dated the Didache.
Evangelion wrote: That is indeed surprising, and I would be very interested to see the reasoning behind it. :?
Well, I suppose you could go listen to his commentary . . .
Yep, I suppose I could. :D
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:32 pm

Matthew 27 and 28 are entirely absent from any extant manuscripts dating before 300 A.D. So it doesn't matter how many later manuscripts contain the "baptismal formula". That only means that the probable later addition became widely distributed.

Personally, I am inclined to think it was indeed a later addition placed their to support trinitarianism.

However, I think "baptising in Jesus name" was not a verbal formula in the early church. It was a fact.

A soldier could shout, "Stop in the name of the king" because he had the authority from the king to arrest a person. Yet, he could still arrest that person in the name of the king without out stating that he was doing so.

I think it is the same with baptism. I have seen people baptised where the one doing the baptism said nothing at all to the baptized person. Yet it was known by all present, that he was baptising in the name of Jesus.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_Jesusfollower
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: NW

Post by _Jesusfollower » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:52 pm

Evagelion, you are right about One thing I don't really know what you believe, but it seems apparent that no one here can see that water baptism was replaced by holy spirit baptism. You also must be very disillusioned to think Eusebius would have quoted anything other than what was in the text.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:02 am

Jesusfollower wrote:Evagelion, you are right about One thing I don't really know what you believe, but it seems apparent that no one here can see that water baptism was replaced by holy spirit baptism.
If water baptism was replaced by Holy Spirit baptism, we wouldn't keep reading about water baptisms in the book of Acts and the apostles wouldn't have instructed people to baptise believers with water.
You also must be very disillusioned to think Eusebius would have quoted anything other than what was in the text.
I think he would have quoted whatever he felt like quoting - regardless of whether or not it was legitimate.

But the point I am making here is that the formula itself existed as a legitimate part of Scripture before Eusebius was even born.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”