Matthew 28:19

[Petrameansrock]

So this scripture is the reason almost every major denomination baptizes in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is also a major argument for the Trinity. But as we have seen in the past with 1 John, there are instances where scripture has been touched by man to promote Trinitarian doctrine. My question is do you think this scripture is valid or invalid? I know we have a lot of people who aren't Trinitarians on here, so that's why I ask.

[Petrameansrock]

Here's my personal view. I have always questioned this scripture since throughout the book of Acts the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus, and I always rationalized this by saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, it became apparently clear to me that these ideas weren't enough. So I researched the history of this scripture. There are no surviving copies of Matthew 28:19 before the Council of Nicea. There are manuscripts of Matthew 28:18 and Matthew 28:20, but not 28:19. That's fishy. I then looked at what the non-Arian early church fathers had to say about baptism. Now almost all of them were Trinitarians, and almost all of them said "Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Unable to reconcile this with the practice in the book of Acts, I dug deeper, and I noticed that ONLY ONE early church father referenced Matthew 28:19 directly, Eusebius of Caesarea. He quoted from (according to him) a Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew from the Library in Caesarea that many of the church fathers like Origen and Jerome used in their day (it was destroyed by Saracens in the 7th century). When quoting from this copy of the Gospel of Matthew he says that Jesus commanded them to "Baptize in My Name". So the only reference we have of Matthew 28:19 before Nicea was by a Trinitarian who didn't think anything of it, but it directly contradicts what our Bibles say today. My theory is that in order to promote Trinitarianism, and in order to be consistent with the practice of the day, the Council of Nicea changed this scripture and made it officially canon. And when we think about it, this really makes sense. The "in the name of the Father, the Son, and Spirit" version sounds very liturgical for Jesus, and comes right after Him saying "everything you do, do in My Name". All this evidence paired with the early church practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus point to this scripture being invalid as it has been traditionally translated.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Petrameansrock]

The scripture is part of God's inspired word and is of course "valid". If you mean can it reasonably be used to support the trinity teaching I would say no, unless otherwise stipulated, the mere mention of three individuals in the same sentence doesn't imply a trinity any more than it would if were to invite you to a party in the name of John, Paul and George (we'll drop Ringo, he was a terrible drummer).

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

I would say that to say the scripture is valid just because the scripture is in the Bible's we have now is misguided. Humans translated these Bibles for us. As originally written (gosh I am sounding like a Mormon) the Bible is correct. And I think 99% of our Bibles are translated correctly. This is just one scripture I have a legitimate question over, and as you can see from my previous post, I have done extensive research on it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

I would say that to say the scripture is valid just because the scripture is in the Bible's we have now is misguided. Humans translated these Bibles for us. As originally written (gosh I am sounding like a Mormon) the Bible is correct. And I think 99% of our Bibles are translated correctly. This is just one scripture I have a legitimate question over, and as you can see from my previous post, I have done extensive research on it.

Would you not do better to question yourself and your interpretation of the scripture rather than its authenticity (there no valid reason to believe it is an interpolation), its transmission or its translation?

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

I have questioned myself. My theology does not suffer from its existence. However, after extensive research (which I laid out and you may examine) I believe it to be a late addition.

[JP Cusick]

Here's my personal view. I have always questioned this scripture since throughout the book of Acts the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus, and I always rationalized this by saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, it became apparently clear to me that these ideas weren't enough. So I researched the history of this scripture. There are no surviving copies of Matthew 28:19 before the Council of Nicea. There are manuscripts of Matthew 28:18 and Matthew 28:20, but not 28:19. That's fishy. I then looked at what the non-Arian early church fathers had to say about baptism. Now almost all of them were Trinitarians, and almost all of them said "Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Unable to reconcile this with the practice in the book of Acts, I dug deeper, and I noticed that ONLY ONE early church father referenced Matthew 28:19 directly, Eusebius of Caesarea. He quoted from (according to him) a Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew from the Library in Caesarea that many of the church fathers like Origen and Jerome used in their day (it was destroyed by Saracens in the 7th century). When quoting from this copy of the Gospel of Matthew he says that Jesus commanded them to "Baptize in My Name". So the only reference we have of Matthew 28:19 before Nicea was by a Trinitarian who didn't think anything of it, but it directly contradicts what our Bibles say today. My theory is that in order to promote Trinitarianism, and in order to be consistent with the practice of the day, the Council of Nicea changed this scripture and made it officially canon. And when we think about it, this really makes sense. The "in the name of the Father, the Son, and Spirit" version sounds very liturgical for Jesus, and comes right after Him saying "everything you do, do in My Name". All this evidence paired with the early church practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus point to this scripture being invalid as it has been traditionally translated.

I agree that the text is surely a later interpolation which does not belong there.

Compare that to Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter being the chief Apostle tells about receiving the "Holy Ghost" which is far more sensible then being baptized in the name, and the point of the baptism was to receive the Holy Ghost and the remission of sins - not to be baptized into 3 names.

I never knew this before, so I appreciate the insight and the new revelation that you shared here.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

I have questioned myself. My theology does not suffer from its existence. However, after extensive research (which I laid out and you may examine) I believe it to be a late addition.

When examining the Bible there are two ways to go.

Exegesis and eisegesis. They conflict each other therefore only one can be used when reading the Bible.

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.� That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,� which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

I underlined two important words in these definitions. Objective and subjective. Why?

To be objective towards scripture is where what the scripture says is imposed on us. To subject a scripture to subjective interpretation means we are imposing on to the scripture.

What do I mean? Here is an example.

2 Chronicles 27:1-2
“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.�

EISEGESIS
First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.� The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?�

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values. And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration. However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.

EXEGESIS
First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died� (2 Chronicles 26:21).

Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,� it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

Now then, what should we use to understand what Matthew 28:19 is saying? Do we impose our will or a preconceived will on the scripture with the trinity doctrine using eisegesis? Or do we approach the scripture without being biased and use exegesis? Thus exploring and analyzing the scripture using context and other scripture? Who or what is the Father? Who or what is the Son? Who or what is the holy spirit. If we just read the scripture for what it is why impose that all of these are God? There is nothing in scripture that says this, correct?

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 8 by 2timothy316]

I think that in order to conduct either analysis you need to know what it actually said originally, which is why I started the forum. What are your thoughts on its accuracy as our modern Bibles portray it?

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 7 by JP Cusick]

No problem glad I could shed some light on the subject. To be clear your thoughts on water baptism are that it isn't as important as Spirit baptism? Or that it isn't necessary? Just curious.