the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

[Checkpoint]

This is a name combination tied to baptism, but used only once in the NT, by Jesus.

He spoke those words after His resurrection just before His ascension, in Matthew 28, when He said:

18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age".

Some questions for discussion:

Why three names when all later occasions recorded, use only the name of Jesus?

Is this evidence, or does it show, that Jesus believed He was part of a Trinity?

Why is it "the name of" rather than "the names of"?

What does it mean to be baptised into "the name of" each?

[Elijah John]

This is a name combination tied to baptism, but used only once in the NT, by Jesus.

He spoke those words after His resurrection just before His ascension, in Matthew 28, when He said:

18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age".

Some questions for discussion:

Why three names when all later occasions recorded, use only the name of Jesus?

Is this evidence, or does it show, that Jesus believed He was part of a Trinity?

Why is it "the name of" rather than "the names of"?

What does it mean to be baptised into "the name of" each?

Whatever happened to the name of the Father, whose name Jesus himself teaches us to hallow?

And "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHVH) will be saved."

That singular Trinitarian verse strikes me as one of those that was added to the text, after the Trinity was adopted as dogma. But I am not a scholar of the original languages, nor of the original texts, so I might be wrong about that.

There's another similar verse in the KJV, which indicates the "three are one" or something to that effect, but I think pretty much everyone admits that was an addition.

Even taken at face value, the baptismal Trinitarian verse says nothing about the relative status and standing of each Person in the Trinity, never suggesting the three are equal.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Checkpoint]

If a policeman demands a householder "Open up in the NAME of the law!" what does that mean? And is the Law's name "Bob"?

JW

[tigger2]

Mt. 28:19 "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit."

(From my blog file)

Trinitarian author Robert Reymond was quoted as saying about this scripture in his book Jesus the Divine Messiah,

“what [Jesus] does say is this ... ‘into the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article [the word ‘the’].�

Sure enough, when we read Matt. 28:19, we find,

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular in the Greek] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." - RSV.


(The fact that Matt. 28:19 is considered to be spurious by some scholars - because of both good external and internal evidence - is not the issue here.)

Bible phrases beginning "in the name of..." indicate that the secondary meaning of "authority" or "power" was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, 1983. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: "baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit."

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of "name" ("authority," "power") he says that it is used

"in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16...."


A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19.

　The fact that "name" is singular at Matt. 28:19 is only further proof that "authority" or "power" was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural "names" would be used (compare Rev. 21:12). Even trinitarians admit that their God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those "persons" has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not)! Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different "persons," the plural "names" would have been used in this scripture.

Since it clearly means "in recognition of the power, or authority of," it is perfectly correct to use "name" in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, "I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice."

There is a famous statement in United States history that perfectly illustrates this use of the singular "name" when it is being used to mean "in recognition of power or authority." Ethan Allen, writing about his capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, quoted the words he spoke when the British commander of that fort asked him by what authority Allen had captured it.
Ethan Allen replied:

"In the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." - p. 100, A Book About American History, Stimpson, Fawcett Publ., 1962 printing. (Also see Rebels and Redcoats, p. 54, Scheer and Rankin, Mentor Books, 1959 printing; and p. 167, Vol. 1, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, the 1955 abridgment of the New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.)

How ludicrous it would be to conclude that Allen really meant that Jehovah and the Continental Congress had the same personal name and were both equally God!
To paraphrase the quote credited to trinitarian writer Reymond at the beginning of this section above:

"What Ethan Allen does say is this ... 'in the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' first asserting the unity of the two by combining them within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article ['the']."

According to this desperate attempt by trinitarians to make trinitarian evidence from Matt. 28:19, then, the same kind of statement by Ethan Allen is evidence (because of the singular "Name" and the repeated article) that The Continental Congress is equally God! (We might also consider a British expression: "in the name of God, king and country.")

Also notice how Luke 9:26 (which actually says, "when [Jesus] comes in the glory [singular] of him [Jesus] and of the Father and of the holy angels") is, according to this Trinitarian interpretation, "first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single [glory], and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article." But, here, of course, the angels, too, make up the "trinity." We have, then, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy angels!

If Jesus were really saying that Jehovah, Jesus, and the holy spirit had personal names and these names must be used during baptism, he would have used the plural word "names" at Matt. 28:19. And we would see the Father's personal name ("Jehovah" - Is. 63:16; 64:8 - Ps. 83:18 and Luke 1:32 - Exodus 3:15 and Acts 3:13) and the Son's personal name ("Jesus" - Luke 1:31, 32) and the holy spirit's personal name ("?") all being used in Christian baptism ceremonies for the past 1900 years.

Honestly now, how many religions actually use the personal names "Jehovah," "Jesus," and "(??)" when baptizing? - ("We baptize you in the names of 'Jehovah,' 'Jesus,' and '???'.") Or, since a few anti-Watchtower trinitarians even claim that the singular "name" at Matt. 28:19 is really "Jehovah," how many religions really use the personal name "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") when baptizing? ("We baptize you in Jehovah's name.") Any church that does not do so, must be admitting, in effect, that "name" in this scripture does not mean personal name!

In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian "evidence" for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian "proofs"! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

[Elijah John]

"What Ethan Allen does say is this ... 'in the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' ....

It's good to see the Deist Ethan Allen invoke and extract the Bible name for God, "Jehovah". And as a Deist, we can know that he means it to be singular, (most, if not all Deists are monotheists) in addition to the linguistic reasons that you point out.

how many religions really use the personal name "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") when baptizing? ("We baptize you in Jehovah's name.")

I think this would be a good practice, and would love to see it adopted.

In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian "evidence" for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian "proofs"! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

That's about all they got, if they want to appeal to the Bible for support of the doctrine of the Trinity. But it ain't much, as you have demonstrated.

[Pierac]

This is a name combination tied to baptism, but used only once in the NT, by Jesus.

He spoke those words after His resurrection just before His ascension, in Matthew 28, when He said:

18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age".

Some questions for discussion:

Why three names when all later occasions recorded, use only the name of Jesus?

Is this evidence, or does it show, that Jesus believed He was part of a Trinity?

Why is it "the name of" rather than "the names of"?

What does it mean to be baptised into "the name of" each?

We need to study the Hebraic meanings of words....

Name - This word of course brings to mind an actual name, such as John Doe. But what does it mean to a Jew.
Name - 1. designates more than the external person; it tends to express his basic character, his personality. We might say it is an emanation of the person himself. 2. authority of, expressing attributes, in acknowledgment or confession of (NABD & VED).
This definition helps us in a verse like John 17:26:
"I (Jesus) made known to them your name and I will make it known."
Jesus obviously did not come to inform the Apostles that God’s name is YHWH. He came to explain God’s character, His attributes, His will, so that we could come to truly know God and follow His ways. This understanding of the word "name" along with the definition of the next word "baptize" will clear up your misunderstood verse.

Baptize - We always think of being baptized in water, either as infants or adults. Yes, this definition is used many times in the New Testament, but there is also another meaning that we must store in the back of our minds.

Baptize - 1. to unite together, to become closely bound to (TGEL & VED).
Now we will put together the definitions of "name" and "baptize" to get the true meaning of Matthew 28:19.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has this commentary on this verse:
"The phrase in Matthew 28:19, ‘baptize them in the name’ would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one in whose name he was baptized."

With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles had to go into the world and explain to the Gentiles who God is, who the Son (The Messiah) is, and also about the power that they would receive from God’s Spirit. If we take it to mean that we are to water baptize people in the actual name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, then why is it that no one in the Bible ever uses this formula to water baptize believers?


Paul

[dio9]

I don't think Jesus actually said this, I think it was a later Baptism formula added by the apostolic church in Matthew's times.
Jesus wasn't interested is Baptism , he was mostly interested in ushering in the Kingdom of God. Baptism was important to the apostolic church but not Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't think Jesus actually said this, I think it was a later Baptism formula added by the apostolic church in Matthew's times.
Jesus wasn't interested is Baptism , he was mostly interested in ushering in the Kingdom of God. Baptism was important to the apostolic church but not Jesus.

But the passage is in the bible and a part of the bible canon. Certain verses can be dismissed that are considered inauthentic by Biblical scholars and supported by Biblical criticism (such as the Johannine Comma) but this isn't one of them.

Jesus himself was Baptised and in Matthew 28: 19, 20 commanded his disciples to go baptising. Obviously then baptism was important enough for Jesus to mention it.