Bishop's Epistle

Monday, September 7, 2015

Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed

Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed

Modalistic Monarchianism

(This article is excerpted from my book "Godhead Theology")

Both the Council and Creed of Nicæa (A.D. 325) have been much misunderstood by non-Trinitarians (and Trinitarians alike) for such a long time, that, I fear it will require more than this humble author’s attempt to bring about a correction. Since Godhead Theology has taken a stand in this arena, as a defender of said Council and Creed, it behooves us to undertake a demonstration of how the Creed of Nicæa would be interpreted and affirmed by Modalists of the fourth and twenty-first centuries.

In order to arrive at an honest interpretation of the text, one must strive to understand the intent of the framers. Any attempt to comprehend the Creed through modern usage of the terms found in the Creed is sure to meet with certain disappointment. Therefore, a long and ardent study of the debate of the first 300 years of the Church is absolutely required before approaching the Creed. Your humble author has devoted the last thirty years of his life to just such a study. The commentary that is presented in this writing is sure to offend the tritheist who tout themselves as Trinitarians, and will bring surprise and wonderment to those in the Oneness camp that have been taught to despise all things Nicaean. The reader should remember that the Council was dominated by the Modalistic Monarchian bishops present, and it was their watchword “homoousia” that saved Christendom from the Arian heresy of Subordinationism. The Creed of Nicæa is the paragon of post apostolic (the church after the death of the Apostles) Christology.

So, then, given here is our short commentary of the Creed of the 318.

The Creed of Nicæa

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth,

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,

and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Hello friends, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Once you have read this paper please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support. -JLH

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Commentary

I. Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν

We believe in one God,

The shibboleth of Christianity is the belief in One Only God. The Shema (Deut 6:4) is the gate keeper of the Faith. “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD.” (See Isa 44:8, 45:5, 18, 21-22; 46:5, 9.)

II. Πατέρα παντοκράτορα

the Father Almighty,

Here, the Creed acknowledges the Father to be the fountain of Deity. All “God-stuff” originates and flows out of Him. There can be but ONE Almighty—which He is. In both the Old and New Testaments we are informed that the Father is the only true God. (See, Isa 63:6, 1 Cor 8:6, John 17:1, 3.) The idea of “FATHER” is one of progenitor, nourisher, protector, and upholder. He is acknowledged as the Father by the Psalmist (68:5; 89:26), and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (see Isa 9:6; 63:16; 64:8 and Jer 3:19; 31:9 respectively). Moreover, the New Testament magnified His capacity as creator, nourisher, protector, and upholder of all things in heaven and earth, both visible and invisible (Col 1:16), by His eternal Word (see John 1:1-3 and Heb 11:3 respectively). Gods fatherhood is abundantly demonstrated in both Testaments.

III. πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν

maker of all things visible and invisible;

The Father is acclaimed by the Creed as the Creator of all things. In Isaiah 44:24 Yahweh states, “I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;...” (The student of the Creed must remember this when interpreting line IX.) The prophet Malachi acknowledges one Father, who is the one God that created us (Mal 2:10). Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 310-367), wrote: “The Father is He to whom all that exists owes its origin. ... Moreover, His existence is existence in itself, and He does not derive His existence from anywhere else. Rather, from Himself, and in Himself, He possesses the actuality of His being. ... He is always beyond location, because He is not contained; always before the ages, because time comes from Him.… God, however, is present everywhere; and everywhere He is totally present. ... Outside of Him there is nothing, and it is eternally His characteristic that He shall always exist. This is the truth of the mystery of God, And of the impenetrable nature which this name Father expresses; God is invisible, unutterable, and infinite. ... He has, as ... in the word Father a name to indicate His nature; but He is Father as such. For He does not, as humans do, received His Fatherhood from elsewhere. He Himself is unbegotten and eternal; and it is His property, eternally in Himself, that He shall always be.”

IV. καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

The Creed emphasizes a particular Christ. There are those that would preach a different Jesus than the Jesus of the holy Scripture. The Creed knows but One Jesus, as should we. The Christology of the Church must be that of the prophets, apostles and Jesus Christ, Himself (Eph 2:20).

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

One is said to be the “son of” whatever he exemplifies or manifests. One who dwells in the desert is said to be the a “Son of the Desert.” Also, in this way the brothers James and John were said to be “Sons of Thunder;” and, Joses’ name was changed by the apostles to Barnabas (“Son of Consolation” Acts 4:36). Thus, these persons were understood to be the very nature, character, or essence of what they were the “sons” of. When Jesus is called the Son of God we are to understand that He manifests the very nature, character and essence of the Father. Understanding this helps us comprehend the encounter between Jesus and the Jews in John chapter 10, where Jesus had said that He and the Father were One. The Jews then took up stones to stone Him. Jesus asked them for what good work they were preparing to stone Him. They said clearly, “For no any good work, but because you being a man have made yourself God.” Jesus, in His defense said, “You say I blaspheme because I said, I am the Son of God.” To the Jews, then, Jesus had called Himself God because He said He was the Son of God. As one is the “Son of the Desert”, or “Sons of Thunder”, or the “Son of Consolation,” Jesus was the Son of God. He embodied all that was God the Father (John 10:30ff; 1 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9). This, then, makes Peter’s confession more powerful than we ever knew, when he proclaimed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” —Matthew 16:16.

V. γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ

begotten from the Father, only-begotten,

When the Creed speaks of Jesus being “begotten from the Father” one should not think in the terms of human begetting and birth. The ancients did not think in such a manner. The term μονογενῆ - monogenē, means: unique, one of its kind. The begetting of the Son was a unique begetting. An example of the ancients’ understanding may be found in the writings of Athenagoras of Athens. He announces that the Son is the thought of the Father. For him the plurality of God is not a plurality of self rational persons, but of modal aspects of the Deity. The Son/Word is the thought of the Father; the Holy Spirit is the action or the animation in the universe produced by the “Word” (thought) of the Father. Again, not different moral persons, but different modal manifestations. For the early churchmen that gave us the Creed of Nicæa, God’s thought/word (His logos) was His Son, because He “birthed” it in his knos (mind). There is no separate God-person here, only the thought/word of the Father called His logos.

Athenagoras said “We do indeed think also that God has a Son - please let no one laugh at the idea of God having a Son! This is not a case of the myths of the poets who make the gods out to be no better than men; we have no such ideas about God the Father or the Son. The Son of God is Word of the Father in thought and power. All things were made through Him and after His fashion. The Father and the Son are one, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son by the powerful union of the Spirit - the Son of God is Mind and Word of the Father.”

VI. τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος
that is, from the substance/being of the Father,

Jesus was the same “ousia” as the Father. In no uncertain terms the Creed is stating that Jesus is the same Being as the Father.

John 1:18 “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB)

When we consider Jesus being the Son of God, because of His “generation,” we have the event of God Himself being birthed into our world through the matrix of a woman’s womb. The Greek New Testament renders John 1:18 thusly, “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. Here John calls Jesus “monogenēs theos” English: “only (uniquely) begotten God.” In this case, it is the Incarnated God that is called the Son—because of His having undergone generation. Therefore, in this sense, it is not the humanity of Christ alone, that the Scripture designates as the Son, but the God-man as He is in Himself. It is in this sense that the ancient Monarchians viewed the Son of God as God. In this writer’s opinion, this definition must be allowed because of the weight of manuscript evidence for John 1:18.

VII. Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,

God from God, light from light, true God from true God,

Jesus taught that He proceeded from the Father. He was in fact, God from God, Light from Light, and true God from true God. Lest we get it mixed up, and suppose that Jesus is “another God,” or “God also,” The Creed informs us differently. John wrote of this Light: “In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” —John 1:4-9.

Jesus was the true Light of Yahweh God shining into a world full of darkness that had blinded men. Before this Light the darkness fled. This Light was not another Light from God, it was God! Some have supposed that Jesus is the Light of God as one would light one torch from another. Not so! That would mean that two somethings share the same Light. Jesus is not God, or Light, as if the deity of God, or the Light of God was shared with Him, and thereby making Him another God, or another Light. As would be the case if we are considering torches. No, Jesus is Light from Light as the Sun and it Rays. The Rays of the Sun are the same Sun in a different way. Jesus is not like God, He IS God in a different way. Jesus has not been illumined by God, He IS the Light of God shining into the created universe, dispelling the darkness.

VIII. γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,

begotten not made, of one being with the Father,

It is here, in these two statements of the Creed, that the framers accomplish their purpose. The Arians said that the Son of God was actually a created being. It was the purpose of the Council to frame a Creed that the Subordinationist could not sign. The “begotten not made” clause is a frontal assault on the Arians and is, therefore, against their fundamental belief system. The “begotten” is to be thought of in the sense that Athenagoras set forth. God “birthed” His thought/word. Thus, the thought/word of God, then, is said to be His Son, by virtue of the begetting of it. Further, the thought/word of God (His Son) is Himself in a revealed, intelligible way.

The second of these two statements “of one being with the Father” is the core of the Council’s attack on Arius and his followers. It is, indeed, the coup de grâce delivered by the orthodox to the Arians. The word “homoousion” which identified Jesus as the same being/substance/essence as the Father, was supplied by the Modalists. It had been their watchword for, at least 100 years, as is demonstrated by the separate episodes of Paul of Somosata and the two Dionysii in the previous century. The Subordinationist could have lived with homoiousion (like being), but not homoousion (same being).

IX. δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth,

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by which also he made the worlds” —Hebrews 1:2.

Greek dia as found in Hebrews 1:2 (also, in this line of the Creed) and translated in the KJV as by (in our Creed translated “through”), is the instrumental cause; of the ground or reason of which anything is or is not done; by reason of, because of... . The Creed has already told us that it was the Father that created all things visible and invisible (line III). Here, we are shown how the creation was carried out: i.e. by the Word of God. The “logos” the thought/word of God. God spoke and His universe leapt into existence. Therefore, God the Father created dia, by or through His begotten Son. (We must be careful to point out that the begotten Son is not understood as a separate God-person from the Father, but the thought/word of God — the revealed, intelligible God.)

Of course there is a sense in which the Father created with His Son in view. This, because creation would have been an unjust act without the Son of God redeeming fallen man in God’s foreknowledge. Because God is all knowing, He knew His creation would fall from His grace. Knowing this before hand, He created all things with the redemption in view. That is, the Father predicated all creation on the cross. Thus, the Creed can say, “δι’ οὗ,” or “through whom.” The “whom” was the Son of God crucified before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

X. τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, κατελθόντα,

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,

The Wisdom of The Lord declared: If man cannot come up to me, then I will go down to him. Jesus was the “uniquely begotten God” (John 1:18). The Creed states “Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,” The truth declared in this line of the Creed is the Incarnation of the Father in Mary’s womb, and the reason for that Incarnation: To whit, the salvation of sinful mankind. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best when he wrote “To whit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them;” (2 Cor 5:17). Paul also wrote, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest[ed] in flesh,…” (1 Tim 3:16). Thus, to this end the Apostle John wrote, “And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin” (1 John 3:5). Therefore, when John the Baptist introduced Jesus to the world he cried, “Behold! The lamb of God which takes (Grk: bears) away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

XI. καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
and became incarnate and became man,

Truly, it was the Logos, the Word of God, that became Incarnated in human flesh. But, make no mistake, the Logos was not a separate God-person from God the Father. It was His Word (that was in very fact Himself, John 1:1) projected into a virgin’s womb. When Mary believed the Word of the Angel, she conceived by that Word. The Word of God was tabernacled in the world in a human body (John 1:14). This line of the Creed acknowledges the dual nature of Christ. The true God from true God took on humanity in the Incarnation.

XII. παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
and suffered, and rose again on the third day,

The suffering Messiah is prophesied of in Isaiah chapter 53, among other places of the Old Testament. Not the least of which is the prophet Zechariah’s prediction that Yahweh would be pierced (Zech 12: 4, 10). The fulfillment of such prognos-tications, as is recorded in the four Gospels, provides the surety of the creedal statement, “and suffered.”

The suffering of the Son of God was of some concern to the ancients. It is of some interest that this line of the Creed comes after the logos assuming manhood, as is stated in the previous line, “and became man.” Patripassianism (God the Father suffered) is avoided by isolating the passion of Christ to His humanity. Though cognizant of this fact, the bishops had not yet hammered out the precise wording to articulate its concepts. Such codification would wait until the Nestorian controversy and the Council of Chalcedon in the next century (Nestorian controversy, A.D. 431; Chalcedon, A.D. 451).

The resurrection of Christ on the third day does not only validate Jesus’ prediction that the only sign given to His generation would be the sign of Jonah, but assures the Christian of a sure resurrection. The bones of the founders of other world religions remain in their dusty graves; while, the grave of the founder of Christianity is empty. The empty tomb in Jerusalem presages a general resurrection of all believers. Pagan philosophy has speculated at the eternality of the soul, but never in their most adventurous dreams did they guess that the body would get up and join it.

XIII. ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.

and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead,

Here the Creed affirms what every Christian knows: Christ ascended to Heaven and will return again as the Great Judge, to judge all men of the deeds done in their bodies, whether good or evil. The creedal statement “to judge the living and dead,” speaks to a general resurrection of both sinners and saints. Jesus had taught a general resurrection of the dead– literally. John recorded his words, “... for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29; cf. Dan 12:2; Acts 24:15; Rev 20:11).

XIV. καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
And in the Holy Spirit.

The 318 bishops, here, affirm their belief and faith in the Holy Spirit, without identifying the Spirit in any way. This Creed is totally void of Trinitarian language that is found in later creeds and formulas of faith, which assign to the Holy Spirit a separate identity from the Father and the Son.

XV. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο,

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing,

In this line of the Creed we have arrived at the anathemas. In modern thought one does not expect (or accept, for that matter) the Church to curse those who hold or preach wrong views. The ancients had no such proclivities. People that taught a wrong Jesus were damning to the salvation of those that followed them, and should, themselves, be damned.

Here, after an unexpected statement concerning the Holy Spirit, the Creed returns to its Christological mission, and renews its attack on Subordinationism. This line of the Creed views, with the utmost contempt, any who would dare suggest that the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” of line IV, was not eternal. Of course, as Modalist, we can agree to the eternality of the Son of God as it, was then, and is now, understood that the Son, i.e. the Logos is God’s thought/word from silence (Bishop Ignatius, of Antioch, A.D. 107; Athenagoras of Athens, A.D. 176/77 ). Or, in a more particular way, the Modalist might say that the Son proper, i.e. in physical form, had a certain day in which He was born, by the Father undergoing generation. In this view, the eternality of Christ has His deity in view. So, in this sense it is not the Son proper (Mary’s baby) that is eternal, but rather the God from God, the Light from Light, the true God from true God, who became the Son.

XVI. ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ κτιστόν ἢ τρεπτόν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,

or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change

The Creed states in clear terms that the Son of God is: God from God, Light from Light and True God from True God. Christ is not another God-person from the Father Almighty. Not as one would light one torch from another—thus, making two torches, but as Rays from the Sun. The deity of the Son and the deity of the Father is the self same ousia, or, in this line of the Creed, hypostasis. Origen had said the the Father and the Son were both eternal, but were not the same hypostasis; Arius argued that not only was Jesus not the same hypostasis as the Father, but neither was He eternal. By this Creed, both men and their followers were anathematized, as the next, and final, line of the Creed makes plain.

XVI. τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

In this final line, the bishops at Nicæa take the high ground for the cognomen they claim for themselves. They represent the “catholic and apostolic Church.” Catholic (universal) and apostolic (of, or, from the Apostles) are used as ad-jectives for Church. The formula is painfully clear: All that cannot affirm this statement of Faith are cursed by the catholic and apostolic Church, consequently, then, placed outside of fellowship.

Conclusion

To conclude this commentary on the Creed of Nicæa we will only say: There is nothing trinitarian (in the modern since of that doctrine) in this Creed, nor in the Council that produced it. The rejection of this formula of faith by the twentieth and twenty-first century Christians, calling themselves Oneness, is uncalled for. By doing so, we have been robbed of a rich history that should be a major part of our doctrinal underpinning.

Apostolically Speaking

† David Ignatius

If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

The above is an excerpt from the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology" which may be purchased from Amazon at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444861346&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ABishop+Jerry+Hayes

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/defense-of-first-timothy-316-answering.html

Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Monday, August 17, 2015

MATTHEW 28:19 AND 1 JOHN 5:7, SPURIOUS TEXTS?

MATTHEW 28:19 AND 1 JOHN 5:7,

(Answering Objections to Modalism)

(Excerpted from Godhead Theology, by Bishop Jerry Hayes)

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” —Matthew 28:19.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. —1 John 5:7.

Supporters of Trinitarianism have very few passages in the Bible where all three titles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, (or like terms) appear together; Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are their two most important ones. When appealing to biblical support for their doctrine, these two texts are foundational. As uncomfortable as it is for this writer, doctrinal integrity compels us to look at the canonicity of both texts, but especially Matthew 28:19.

Given modern scholarship it can no longer be said that the jury is out concerning the validity of Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7. All but the most radical King James Version advocates seem to agree that Matthew 28:19 could not have been the words of Jesus, and 1 John 5:7 (called the Johannine Comma) is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts of 1 John, and none of the very early church fathers include it when quoting or referencing 1 John 5:7-8. The presence of the Johannine Comma in Greek manuscripts is actually quite rare until the 15th century A.D.; it is primarily found in Latin manuscripts. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies.

Since it is a forgone conclusion that the Johannine Comma is a spurious text, for the most part this chapter will deal with Matthew 28:19. Here are the names of scholars who likewise agree that Matthew 28:19 is spurious: F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, Wilhelm Bousset, and Norman Pittenger. Karl Barth references Matthew 28:19 with the utmost caution; in fact, referencing it as an expansion of the shorter formula of “in the name of Jesus.”

According to F. C. Conybeare,

“Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between A.D. 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”

Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words “in my name.” Thus in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p. 136):

“For he did not enjoin them 'to make disciples of all nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to his appellation that the Apostle says, God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

Conybeare proceeds: (in Hibbert Journal, 1902, p 105): “It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors (deposited in the great library at Caesarea Maritima). Of any other form of text he had never heard, and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one, “Against Marcellus of Ancyra,” the other “About the Theology of the Church,” he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the council of Nicea was over, to his see of Caesarea.”

In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Conybeare writes: “It is clear, therefore, that the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus, this, long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of reading.”

An objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argues that Eusebius found the Testus Receptus (traditional text) in his manuscripts, but, “substituted the shorter formula in his works for fear of vulgarizing and divulging the sacred Trinitarian formula.” It is interesting to find one of more recent time reviving the very argument used 150 years before, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7, Johann Albrecht Bengel “...allowed that the words of the Johannine Comma were in no genuine MSS... surely, then, the verse is spurious! No: this learned man finds a way of escape. The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. Under what a want of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument" --Porson (Preface to his letters)!

Conybeare writes, refuting the arguments of the Bishop of Ely: “It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius’s argument, when he cites the text, involves the text ‘in my name.’ For, he ask, ‘in whose name?’ and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10.”

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between “nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent.”

Evidence of Other Witnesses

Author of De Rebaptismate: The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century dwells at length on “the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism” (De Rebaptismate 6.7 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p. 352).

Origen: In Origin's works as preserved in Greek, the first part of the verse is thrice cited, but his citation always stops short at the words “the nations.” This suggests that his text has been censured, and words which followed, “in my name,” struck out.

Clement of Alexandria: “In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew xxviii. 19 is once cited; but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, as follows: ‘And to the apostles he gives the command. Going around preaching ye and baptize those who believe in the name of father and son and holy spirit’” (Excerpta, cap. 76, ed. Sylb. p. 987; --Conybeare).

Justin Martyr: “Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Christ as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the truine formula. This certainly suggest that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p 380)

“In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew xxviii. 19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258: ‘God hath not yet inflicted no (sic) inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even to-day are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illumined by the name of this Christ.’ The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation of our text was that they ignored the formula ‘baptising them in the name of the Father and Son and holy Spirit.’ But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes this difficulty; and Justin is seen to have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300-340.” (Conybeare, Hibbert Journal p 106)

Macedonius: “We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope, Stephen, answered him that the baptisms even of heretics were valid, ‘if the name of Jesus alone was invoked.’ (However, this decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its adhesion to the old use of invoking the one name.) In the last half of the fourth century the text ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost’ was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called pneumao-machi or fighters against the Holy Spirit, because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text of the N.T. authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius.’” (F.C. Conybeare, Hibbert Journal, page 107)

Eunomius: “Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. CYPRIAN (Ep.73) and the APOSTOLIC CANONS (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of Canon Apostolic 50 runs: ‘If any Bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.' This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24) for they baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. They accordingly used single immersion only.” (Ency. Biblica, Art. Baptism)

Aphraates: “... Aphraates the Syriac father who wrote between 337 and 345... cites our text in a formal manner as follows: ‘Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.’ The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebius reading ‘in my name.’ But in any case they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptise in the triune name. Were the reading of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in presence of the Eusebian and Justinian text this is impossible.” (Conybeare [THJ] page 107)

Conybeare: “In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS., the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew. But in any case the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. We have no codex older than the year 400, if so old; and long before that time the question of the inclusion of the holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominate party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespectively of its textual affinities,” (Hibbert Journal)

Internal Evidences

I. Evidence of the Context

When the context is examined, we find that in the AV the sense of the passage is hindered, but if we read as we suggest below, the whole context fits together and the tenor of the instruction is complete:

“All power is given unto ME ... go therefore... baptizing in MY name, teaching them... whatsoever I have commanded... I am with you...”

II. Evidence of Frequency

Is the phrase “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” used elsewhere in Scripture? NOT ONCE!

Did Jesus use the phrase “in my name” on other occasions? YES! 17 times! (Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5; Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17; Luke 9:48; 21:8; John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26, etc..)

III. Evidence of Argument

Is any argument in Scripture based on the fact of the threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatever!

Is any argument in Scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! This is the argument in 1 Corinthians 1:13: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

From this argument, if carefully analyzed, it will appear that believers ought to be baptized in the name of that One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His amazing love, gave us His beloved Son, who by the Spirit was raised to incorruptibility, but it is the Lord Himself who was crucified, and in HIS name, therefore, must believers be baptized in water.

Dr. Thomas says: “There is but one way for a believer of the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus the Christ, to put him on, or to be invested with his name, and that is, by immersion into his name. Baptism is for this specific purpose.” (Revealed Mystery, Art. XLIV) “There is none other name under heaven” no other name or names “given among men, whereby we must be saved” —Acts 4:12.

“As for its significance: baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ it is the means of the believer's identification with the Lord's death" (God's Way, p190). Now the Father did not die, nor did the Spirit. “Buried with him,” not them (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) —Romans 6:3-5.

Robert Roberts uses this argument: “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 [to] 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 (other than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved’” (The True Nature of Baptism, p. 13).

This, of course, is the same argument as Paul's (see above), and although Robert Roberts did not so intend, his argument is equally effective against the use of the triune name as against the practice of triune-immersion. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul, or the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that displaces Christ from his position as the connecting link, as the ONLY name for salvation? That is the argument, and confirms the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 to contain the phrase “in my name.”

IV. Evidence of Parallel Accounts

Now it happens that Matthew was not alone in recording the words of Jesus before his ascension. Let us compare the parallel accounts of Luke and Mark.

Luke, who writes in the third person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS NAME among all nations” —Luke 24:46-47. This passage therefore restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19 “in my name.”

Furthermore, Mark records the last discourse of Jesus before His ascension. Here, we have yet another witness to the correct text, for Mark, after using similar words to Matthew: “go ye ...all the world ...preach ....Every creature...baptize...” (Mark 16:15-17), includes not the triune formula but the phrase—“in my name.”

V. Evidence of Principle

It is written, “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col 3:17).

Now here is a principle laid down, and the comprehensive word “whatsoever” certainly includes baptism, which is a rite involving both word and deed. Now of the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19, i.e. the threefold name, is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter phrase is. This item of Internal Evidence, therefore, proves which of the two variant readings is the spurious one.

That we are presenting a true exegesis is proved by other Scripture. It was Paul who enunciated the Principle introduced here.. Did it, in his opinion, include baptism? Acts 19:3-5 supplies the answer. The baptism of John, like the baptism of Jesus (then and now), was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38-39). Also John preached the coming of the Messiah who should baptize with the Holy Spirit. The difference between the baptism of John and baptism after Pentecost is that the latter was in the name of JESUS. NO OTHER DIFFERENCE IS SHOWN IN SCRIPTURE. Now it is written of the disciples at Ephesus that although they had been baptized unto John's baptism, they were later re-baptized, in the presence of Paul, “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:3-5). This evidence provides a doubly-strong proof of the authenticity of the phrase “in my name” for Matthew 28:19. God foreknew the record of the parting words of Jesus to his Disciples would be tampered with. He, in His wisdom, provided a remedy for those who have “eyes to see” in providing the principle enunciated by Paul in Colossians 3:17 and the record of Paul’s application of that principle in Acts 19:3-5.

The Opinion Of Scholars

Sufficient evidence has been produced to enable the reader to decide whether or not the triune names in Matthew 28:19 are spurious. Listed below, however, are the opinions of certain scholars concerning our topic of discussion. Now, while the opinions of others should not be the sole criteria for our understanding of holy Scripture, the thoughts of learned men and women should shine out of the darkness of the night of uncertainty as beacons by which we, who are searchers for truth, may steer our vessels safely through perilous waters.

Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics

“The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism, and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matthew 28:19 (in the AV) represents the exact words of Christ” (Art. Baptism: Early Christians).

Arthur Peake

“The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words, ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ we should probably read simply: ‘into my name’" (Bible Commentary, p. 723).

F. Whiteley, in The Testimony

“There is the ‘triune’ baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but ... we may leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot find one single instance in Acts or the Epistles of the words ever being used at any of the many baptism[s] recorded, notwithstanding Christ's (seemingly) explicit command at the end of Matthew's Gospel” (The Testimony, Oct. 1959, p. 351. Art. Back to Babylon, 4).

Dean Stanley

“Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name... soon superseded the simpler form of that in the Name of the Lord Jesus only” (Christian Institutions).

E.K. in the FRATERNAL VISITOR

“The striking contrast and the illogical internal coherence of the passage... lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interest of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the pas-sage.” (Art. The Question of the Trinity and Matthew 28:19. 1924, pp. 147-151, trans from the Christadelphian Monatshefte.)

Robert Young

In his Literal Translation of the Bible Dr. Robert Young places the triune name in Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.

James Martineau

“The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself” (Seat of Authority, 1905, p. 568).

Black’s Bible Dictionary

“The Trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind.”

Ency. Religion and Ethics

“The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition.”

Professor Adolf von Harnack

Dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being “no word of the Lord” (History of Dogma, German edn. i 68).

F. Whiteley in The Testimony

“Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that apostles and epistles never once employ ‘the Triune Name’ of Matthew 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing Trinity idea was being resisted by Church in 4^th century, admit (e.g. Peake) ‘the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion,’ but prior to oldest yet known Ms. (4^th Century). (Its sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proved interpolation). Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) denounces the Triune form as spurious, Matthew’s actual writing having been ‘in my name.’” (Footnotes to Art: Baptism [5] in The Testimony, Aug., 1958).

The Anchor Bible Dictionary

“The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism” (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585; underling mine).

The Dictionary of the Bible

“It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Lord Jesus:’ Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15. (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83; underling mine)

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: “It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.” (Bolding mine.)

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.” (Bolding mine.)

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:

“The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture... The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19 ... This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text (‘in my name’ rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:...”

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

“Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed...” page 435. (Bolding mine.)

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:

“Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.” (Bolding mine.)

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +.” (Bolding mine.)

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723:

“The Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words “baptizing... Spirit” we should probably read simply “into my name,” i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, “in my name,” i.e. (teach the nations) “in my spirit” (underling mine).

Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 33B, ... Donald A. Hagner, 1975, page887-888:

“The disciples are further told to ‘baptize’ (the second of the participles functioning as supplementary imperatives) new disciples. The command to baptize comes as somewhat of a surprise since baptism is referred to earlier only in chap. 3 (and 21:25) where only John's baptism is described (among the Gospels only in John 3:22; 4:1-2 do we read of Jesus or his disciples baptizing others). Matthew tells us nothing concerning his view of Christian baptism. Only Matthew records this command of Jesus, but the practice of the early church suggest its historicity. (cf. Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; etc.). The threefold name (at most only an incipient Trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf. Did. 7.1). 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” (see Conybeare). 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. ... It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of “name of Jesus” in early Christian preaching, the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular “in his name” with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isaiah 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: “There is no evidence we have Jesus’ ipsissima verba

here” (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of “Jesus Christ” in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) or simply “the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16; 19:5).” (underling mine).

History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79:

“It cannot be directly proven that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus’ recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a “Sacrament of Baptism,” or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged.” (Underling mine.)

The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568:

“The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Matt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (ch. 7:1, 3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized “into Christ Jesus,” or into the “name of the Lord Jesus.” (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul ... was baptized, ... and he certainly was baptized simply “into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism “in the name of Christ Jesus,” (Acts 2:38) and not “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time ... as for that of the period whereof he treats” (Underling mine.)

History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112:

“It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.” "It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance.” (Underling mine.)

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, J. Hastings, 1906, page 170;

“It is doubted whether the explicit injunction of Matt. 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. ...But the Trinitarian formula in the mouth of Jesus is certainly unexpected.” (Underling mine.)

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398:

Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f.) argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. “No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts [or] the epistles of the apostles.”

The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64:

Footnote to Matthew 28:19, “It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus,’ Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same.” (Underling mine.)

The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, page 351;

Matthew 28:19 “... has been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether thy may be the ipsissima verba of Jesus. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal. 3:27; Rom 6:3, suggest that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This is difficult to reconcile with the specific instructions of the verse at the end of Matthew” (Underling mine.)

The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143:

“Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form.”

Baptism in the New Testament, G.R. Beasley-Murray, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962, pg. 83:

G.R. Beasley-Murray in his book, Baptism in the New Testament and a believer of the trinity doctrine, gives us some new insight on how the original text of Matthew 28:19 was structured: “A whole group of exegetes and critics have recognized that the opening declaration of Matt. 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 the nations, baptising them in My name, teaching them to observe all things I commanded you.’ In fact, the first and third clauses have that significance: it looks as thought the second clause has been modified from a Christological to a Trinitarian formula in the interests of the liturgical tradition.” (Underling mine.)

Concluding Remarks

One can look to the listing of the Papyri as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, pages 96-103. This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the earliest manuscripts and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.

Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13. Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52). They were providing only those manuscripts that were dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300). Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is NOT among the verses found there!

Many scholars such as Randall Duane Hughes and Prof. Bart D. Ehrman write that disputes over Christology prompted Christian scribes to alter words of the Scripture in order to “make them more serviceable.” Some church historians, such as Archdeacon Wilberforce, go so far as to see a vast conspiracy to “correct” (sic) the texts to be more compatible to the orthodoxy of the time.

As teachers of the word of God we are faced with the probability that Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are spurious texts. It is good to know that, because these two passages are Trinitarian proof texts—for all intents and purposes, the only ones they have. However, to teach this truth to young believers may do more harm, in the beginning, than good, because it brings suspicion upon the Bible as being dependable. In my humble opinion the following paragraph is the best way to deal with these dubious texts when teaching from them.

Is the Bible the Word of God? Absolutely. But we say it is only the unadulterated Word of God in its original autograph. The burden is on those who would teach the Scriptures to sift through the debris of the centuries to uncover truth. Here is my conviction, and it is just the opinion of this author, so each can take it for what it is worth: I believe that the God of Heaven has protected His word. So that, even when one attempts to alter it, the altered text is made to teach truth. for example, Matthew 28:19, still teaches that one is to be baptized into the single name of Jesus; 1 John 5:7 still teaches that the Father, Word, and the Holy Spirit “are one” God; not that they “agree in one” as does the Spirit, water, and the blood are said to do in the same passage. So, there is a very real sense in which they are the word of God—even if attempted corruptions. I think of Balaam the prophet, and Caiaphas the high priest, both spoke as the oracles of God even when they were attempting to do evil.

What are some other things we should know about Matthew 28:19?

Answer: Since, for the most part, most of us are going to continue dealing with Matthew 28:19 as it appears in our Bibles (this, because we are preachers to, and teachers of, common people and not to seminarians) the following information on Matthew 28:19 is necessary to profitably handle the passage:

The command is to baptize “into” a single name, not into plural names. Some may say that this is a play on words; that too much weight is being placed on one small letter, i.e. the English “S”. However, notice Galatians 3:16 where the apostle Paul stresses the very same argument on the very same word ending, i.e. the English “S,” in order to establish another important doctrine on the person of Christ.
The context of the verse is important to its understanding. In v18, the person of focus is Jesus; also, in v20, the person of focus is Jesus. Therefore, v19 is positioned within this context; it is framed in by vv18 and 20 where Jesus is the person of focus. The Law of Context would suggest that Jesus would also be the person of focus of v19 as well.
The disciples understood that Jesus was speaking of Himself, for He had already told them that He and the Father were one and the same person (John 10:30; 14:7-9). They knew Him to be the Christ, the Son of the Living God —John 6:39. Even before this, He had told them that He was the Holy Ghost and that He would come from heaven and indwell them (John 14:17, 18, 26; 16:7; see Matthew 3:11 where we’re told that it is Jesus who baptizes with the Holy Ghost; therefore, the Holy Ghost is Christ in us the hope of glory, Colossians 1:27).
The same “Great Commission” is recorded by all three of the other evangelist (Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:47; and John 20:21-23). The accounts of the other three evangelist must be consulted for a complete understanding of Matthew’s record.
The Greek text has: eis to onoma - “into the name.” Therefore, there is more than just authority in view here. The baptized one is put, placed, immersed into the NAME - positionally. (See questions 18, 19, and 20.)
One law of Scriptural interpretation is the “Law of Witnesses.” This law requires two or three witnesses to establish any evidence (Deut 17:6; 19:15; Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; and Heb 10:28 ). Matthew 28:19 is the ONLY verse in the entire Bible that mentions the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in reference to Water Baptism. Therefore, it is scripturally illegal to use it as evidence for baptism into the titles.
The Apostle Matthew recorded Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19; the Apostle Peter was the one who gave the command to baptize repentant sinners into the single name of Jesus, as is recorded in Acts 2: 38. There could not have been any disagreement between these two apostles on this matter, because the Bible says, “But Peter, standing out with the eleven,” (notice that Matthew was standing with him) “and lifted up his voice, and said unto them,...” (Acts 2:14). It was during this particular sermon, with Matthew at his side, that Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38).
Here we give Matthew 28:19 diagramed. The titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are objects in the prepositional phrases functioning as adjectives describing the single name: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

This has been an excerpt from my book, Godhead Theology. You may acquire this book either from me, Amazon.com/Books or order it anywhere books are sold; request your public library acquire a copy. Ask for it by title and author.

Apostolically Speaking

☩ David Ignatius

Read other epistles from the pen of the Bishop on the inspiration of Holy Scripture:

"Sola Scriptura"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/05/sola-scriptura.html

If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Excerpted from the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology." Published by Seven Millennium Publications. Order your personal copy today: https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=Godhead+theology%2C+Hayes&qid=1554054212&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmrnull

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ