|
HOUSMAIL HM135
March
2012 IS MATTHEW 28:19
AUTHENTIC? In our current English translations, Matthew 28:19 says that Baptism is to
be performed “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost.’” In contrast, baptisms recorded in the Acts
of the Apostles are performed, variously, in the name of “Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) or “the Lord” (Acts 10:48) or “the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5) (In passing we note that
in a couple of other places, the Apostle Paul refers to “baptizing into Christ”.
(Romans
6:3, Galatians
3:27) It should be noted carefully that this is not the same thing as “baptizing
in the name of”. When a baptizer says, “In the name of Jesus”, it means
that he is claiming to perform the baptism, acting as an agent on behalf of Jesus.
On the other hand, when someone is “baptized into Christ” it means that he (or
she) is entering into a corporate relationship with Jesus. That distinction, though
valid, does not affect this current discussion about the authenticity of the passage
in Matthew.) THE PROBLEM Mainstream Christians see this passage in
Matthew as an (alleged) “proof” of the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand,
some Unitarians are embarrassed by its presence and wish it wasn’t there at all.
Of course, neither is correct. Unitarians need not be embarrassed. Rather they
need to come to grips with its real meaning in a way which HARMONISES with other
Scriptures. And Trinitarians have got it just plain wrong! There are plenty of
other Scriptures which make it clear that the Bible does NOT support the Trinity.
Matthew 28:19 must not be used to contradict
them. For many there is a second problem of a rather
more serious nature. There are quite a few writers who claim that the “baptismal
formula” in Matthew
28:19
is a spurious addition to the original text, and that it is wrong to use these
words when conducting a baptism. They insist that the only correct words to be
used during a baptism MUST be one of the several variations quoted above from
“The Acts of the Apostles”. Some even go so far as to claim it is a SIN to use
the words from Matthew, and that anyone so baptized is not really baptized at
all! ……. And MUST be rebaptized …… using the correct words!! That also is a serious misuse of the Scriptures.
Mere outward forms can conceal an unrepentant heart! God looks deep into our hearts,
to see what lies hidden behind those outward forms! He is much MORE concerned
with the state of the heart of the person being baptized. And from a practical
point of view, I fail to see how that can be affected by what any third party
might say when he baptizes us! After all, the several references in Acts
are not universally consistent in the form of words they use. I suspect that the
reference in Matthew is simply another more expansive variation in the way of
saying the same thing! E.g. That the baptizer is acting – not under his own authority
– but on behalf of a third party. The essential difference is that Matthew sees
fit to remind us of something that is taken for granted in Acts – that at all
times, Jesus speaks and acts under authority DELEGATED to him by his Father, and
in same power of the Holy Spirit by which ALL God’s works are done. (Matthew 28:18, John 4:34, John 5:19, John 8:28, John 14:10-11, THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE The New Testament manuscripts are universally
consistent. There is NOT ONE which contains an alternative reading of Matthew 28:19! And if the New Testament
manuscripts are unanimous, there can be no possible SCRIPTURAL justification for
any claim that it is not original. OTHER SOURCES Eusebius One of the main (so called) justifications
for the claim that the verse is spurious refers us to Eusebius, a 4th century
Church writer and historian. It is claimed that in a number of places in his writings,
Eusebius refers to this verse without including the words, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” However, this is not the whole story! It
would seem much more likely that in those places Eusebius is actually paraphrasing
Matthew. There is also another place in his writings where Eusebius DOES quote
the traditional phrase, from Mathew
28:19,
verbatim!! (See his Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]). OTHER EARLY WRITERS There are other writers MUCH EARLIER than
Eusebius, and much earlier than any New Testament Greek Manuscript, who quote
the baptismal formula in the same words as Matthew. These include: Justin
Martyr (c.
100–165) 1st
Apology Chapter LXI. - Christian baptism. Irenaeus (c. 130–200) Against
Heresies Book 3 Chapter XVII:1 Tertullian, c. 200 AD On Baptism, Chapter XIII and
in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 Hippolytus (170-236 AD) Fragments:
Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical. --Against the Heresy of One Noetus Origen [A.D. 248]. 5:8 http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html (Accessed March 2012) Cyprian
(200-258AD) The
Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian Gregory
Thaumaturgus
(205-265 AD) A
Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII Victorinus
(ca. 270-303) Commentary
on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John; First chapter Tatian
the Syrian
(c. A.D. 170-175). The
Diatesseron Section
LV The Didache (mid to late 1st
century) CONCLUSIONS 1. There are a number of other early Christian writers,
who predate Eusebius by as much as a couple of centuries, who all use the "Baptismal
formula" in its Biblical form – “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And there is no Greek
New Testament manuscript which does not include it in that form. This
strongly suggests that it is much more likely to be authentic in Matthew 28:19 than not. And this means
that we need to deal with it as it is, rather than try to find SPECULATIVE reasons
to reject it. And
that means that it must not be read as contradicting the verbal
variations in the Baptismal formula found in Acts. We must therefore deal with
it in a way which HARMONISES with those readings from Acts. 2. A baptism is NOT made effective by any particular
choice of words by the baptizer. It is ALL about what is in the heart of the person
being baptized. (1
Peter 3:21) Indeed,
if we think that it is the precise words used by the baptizer that make a baptism
effective, we are bordering dangerously close on WHITE MAGIC!! Remember what Moses
said about that? (Deuteronomy
18:10-12)
And what they did about that at Corinth? I
dare to suggest that neither particular form of words is essential. It would be
quite possible to use alternative words to convey the same message – that the
baptizer is acting as a stand-in for Jesus – who in turn, was acting under his
Father’s authority. Indeed, perhaps we could even leave them out altogether –
and concentrate more on what is supposed to be happening in the heart of the person
being baptized. If we must use a “baptismal formula” at all,
it shouldn’t really matter whether the person doing the baptizing claims the authority
of the (collective) “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, or just “Jesus”. They
do effectively mean the same thing! It is quite futile to argue that one
should take preference over the other. Jesus never claimed to be acting solely
on his own authority. He made it quite plain that he was acting FOR his Father,
with complete authority from his Father to do so. And when we act “in the name
of Jesus”, it is implicit that the Father is the primary source of any authority
delegated to us by Jesus. Allon |