HOUSMAIL HM#135 - Is Matthew 28:19 Authentic? March 2012
In our current English
translations, Mathew 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 Jesus”
(Acts 8:48) 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 rebaptised …… 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; 5:19; 8:28;
14:10-11, 28; 17:4)
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 NT
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 NT 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
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 NT 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 Pet. 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? (Deut. 18:10-12) And what
they did about that at Corinth? (Acts 19:19)
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.