“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
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
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.”
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
“Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity…”
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “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.”
(Taken from: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm)
June 12, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Ibn Saad,
I have moved these comments over from
“Refuting 2 Cor 13:14″ at your the request.
Common Sense,
Regarding Matthew 28:19, you raise good points.
1. Eusebius does quote the verse as:
“… in my name” vs “…in the name of the F, S & HS”, which indicates that some
witnesses, did have this version. In fact,
those witnesses are extant today.
2. The main texts that have the trinity formula are Sinaiticus (as you mentioned),
Vaticanus, and Bezae Cantabrigiensis.
The first two are the most complete texts, and were written in the 4th century, as you say. There are fragments going back earlier, which verify the accuracy of these texts, but not in regards to Mat 28:19.
So one might argue as follows:
At the 1st Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, the fathers formulated a fully developed trinitarian doctrine, which became Orthodoxy. And as Orthodoxy, and backed by the Christian Emperor, all texts were changed to reflect the teachings of the council.
The older and more accurate tradition “in the name of Jesus”, however, continued, found in Acts, some witnesses and in Patristics like Eusebius.
This would be persuasive, if there are no earlier references to the trinity(even if they are unformulated). If these do exist, then one has to say there are two early traditions regarding baptism, reflected in the extant witnesses.
And they do exist:
1. In the Didache, written 80-120 CE, in the see of Antioch, there is a trinitarian formula. (There are other early Patristics as well.)
2. In Paul, written around 50-60 CE, in 2 Cor 13:14, as we have discussed earlier.
(Also in Peter as well: 1 Peter 1:2)
3. And finally within the context of Matthew, circa 80 CE, we find it in an unformulated context, which supports an original Mat 28:19.
3.1 Mat 3:16-17 — (all three persons present as baptism)
3.2 Mat 11:27 — (no one knows the Son except the Father…)
So even in Matthew there is a context for
Jesus baptizing in the name of the F, S, and HS.
One last point. We must understand these gospel verses regarding the Trinity as a deepening of understanding, from being with Jesus, which is different from the systematic theology of Nicaea. It is not formula here; its is experience.
jack
June 13, 2009 at 2:34 am
1.)Eusebius does not quote in the name of the father son and HS until after Nicea.
2.) You are correct in saying that didache says something similiarly though didache is NOT a patristic writing.
3.) You are correct in saying that the first to quote matthew 28:19 is 4 centuries after jesus birth however to state since other manuscripts line up with them elsewhere therefore matthew 28:19 is authentic is preposterous as there are Unique readings in the manuscripts as well.
4.) I eagerly concede that the trinitarian formula predates the 4th century–in fact I concede it predates Jesus as is seen in the trinities of Babylon and Egypt!
The Thing that must be understood is that just because there are 3 people or being mentioned does not make them a trinity one in essence etc.
If Matthew 28:19 was authentic it still does not show a trinitarian formula it only shows three beings. What specifically about the verse do you see that shows them one in essence?
“the experience” you speak of sounds more like a cop-out. Its swell and dandy to say “i am privy to special knowledge” but my faith rests on “thus saith the word of the Lord”
June 13, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Hi CommonSense,
I’m glad that we can come to an understanding between us.
You write:
“If Matthew 28:19 was authentic it still does not show a trinitarian formula it only shows three beings. What specifically about the verse do you see that shows them one in essence?”
The first side of the discussion is establishing the three persons –
(which from what you have written, we are in agreement)
The second part is establishing their identity with each other— “homoousios”
– of the same (homo-) being (-ousios) — in the language of Greek fathers at Nicaea…
This is all tied up with the question of
who Jesus is. What are the options?
1. A man with great insight into God?
2. An angel?
3. A being above the angels?
4. God himself?
The Arian position was 3 (or maybe 2 also, depending on how you understand angels), which incidently is similar to the Jehovah Witness position today.
The Nicaean position was 4.
As for scriptural support of the Nicaean position–
it is most clear in the Gospel of John,
particularly in the initial discussion of
the Logos in Chapt 1, as we discussed before. Ibn Saad was going to write a comment on those verses.
Jack
June 13, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I am familiar with what nicea decreed, What i want to know is how they reached their conclusion and whether it has merit.
Specifically dealing with only Matthew 28:19 and no other verse, Other than stating there are 3 beings mentioned it says nothing as to their essence in this verse correct? It merely states that there is a Father a Son and a Holy Ghost?
June 13, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Hi Common sense,
To answer your question, yes. Mat 28:19 establishes the 3 persons (the hypostases)–
By this verse alone, there is no trinity. You also need the homoousion—
that is found starting in John 1.
Jack
June 13, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Good, so this is not a trinity proof verse then
July 2, 2009 at 11:46 pm
As-Sallamu-Alaykom,
Dear brother what a fantastic article !! I was always wondering what verse the christians may use in order to prove the belief of the trinity and your varied and many answers to this verse has really helped me. May Allah (sawt) Bless you.
July 3, 2009 at 12:36 am
Dear brother,
I’m glad that this is helpful to you…
These are a few verses that point the direction— the trinity must be understood in the context of all the scriptures….
May we find peace between our Muslim and Christian brothers…
Bless you, too.
Jack
July 3, 2009 at 1:08 am
Hi Jack,
Is there a particular verse I haven’t addressed. I think u wanted me to address in John 1:1, which I will do. sorry I keep on forgetting.
Other than that, any other verses?
Thanks for participating.
Ibn Saad
July 3, 2009 at 1:31 am
Hi Ibn Saad,
The whole understanding of the trinity hinges around the Gospel of John, particularly the first chapter…
if you want to address that, feel free…
Jack
July 3, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Well – I’ve said it before, but… John 1 alone doesn’t necessarily prove Jesus’ divinity much less a trinity connection.
I’ve heard Ibn Anwar explain away John 1 to many of times – saying that this “logos” could be anything… however – I don’t think I’ve heard him say anything by what it means when this persona of the logos becomes flesh…
However when looking at Col 1:17; Heb 2:10; 1 co 8:6, and Heb 1:2 – it is easily seen that this “logos” is Jesus….
And then supports Jesus’ divinity.
But this is only one step… but after knowing this then one can make a case for the Trinity in Genesis chapter 1..
In Genesis, clearly God is there – who would be the Father – and then there is this ‘logos’ which with new understanding is the Image of God, which we were made after, and also this Logos has a personal distinction away from God..
And then there is this “Spirit” or “Breath” of God which adds the finishing touches on creation and brings life to the world which the Father, created through the “word” or “command” of God…
July 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm
On a side note – interestingly the “Didache” an early Christian Church type manual that is dated from either the first or early second century has the “Trinity baptism Formula”
(Didache – CHAPTER VII)
AND concerning baptism, baptize after this manner : Having first recited all these precepts baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in living water ; 2 but if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water ; and if thou canst not in cold water then baptize in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour out water upon the head thrice, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 4 And Matt, xxviii. 19. before the baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others that are able ; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.
Another Translation
“As regards Baptism, baptize in this manner: Having first given all the preceding instruction [on the Way of Life and the Way of Death, Chs. I-VI], baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. But if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water: and if thou canst not in cold, [then] in warm [water]. But if thou hast neither [neither running nor standing, neither cold nor warm water, nor is it sufficient quantity for immersion], pour water on the head three times, into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before Baptism let the baptizer and the candidate for Baptism fast, and any others who can ; and thou shalt command him who is to be baptized to fast one or two days before.”
July 3, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Hi Ar198,
I’m not sure I follow everything you wrote.
But here are a few observations:
1. “the Logos could be anything…”
No, I think John is making a link between Greek philosophy and the Jewish scripture…. In Greek philosophy, the Logos is the ordering principle of the cosmos and in the scripture, it is a direct reference to the Word of the Lord.
“Logos kuriou.”
2. John begins with this philosophical/scriptural framework, and lays out several critical propositions:
1. In the beginning was the Word.
2. The Word was with God.
3. The Word was God.
4. The Word became flesh and dwelled
among us.
It is hard to argue from this that John did not equate Jesus with God the Father. You might not believe it, but John certainly did.
Jack
July 4, 2009 at 11:18 pm
You cant equate the Word with God the Father that is not trinitarianism that is Sebellianism.
July 7, 2009 at 12:27 am
No. Sabellius said that the Son is but a mode or aspect of the Father. There is no discussion of that here. John 1 says only that the Son and the Father are one. This is quite consistent with Nicene theology.
July 3, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I believe that the word of John 1 is Jesus… it’s “Ibn Anwar” who argues against it… I can’t speak for him… but I believe his argument was in John 1 there is nothing explicit to connect the the word to Jesus…
Also that “logos” can be translated into many different meanings not just “word”…
But I can’t remember if he ever addressed John 1:14 – where the word becomes flesh and dwelt with man….
but – I’m saying that with the support of other passages like Col 1:16-17 – there is no doubt that John 1 is referring to Jesus and an explicit connection can be made.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
July 7, 2009 at 12:39 am
Hi Ar198,
I think John 1 is quite explicit by itself regarding the divinity of Jesus.
But so is your verse, Col 1:16-17. We could also add Phil 2:5-11.
But the question I have for our Muslim friends is: if God is all powerful and all knowing and the creator of this universe, is it not plausible that he could become like us, to visit with us?
Jack
July 7, 2009 at 9:19 pm
http://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/av-lxx-300-bc-on-philippians-26/
I will address John 1:1, and your question in separate posts.
Sorry for the wait I have been very busy these days.
July 9, 2009 at 5:04 am
http://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/god-can-not-become-a-ma/
July 13, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Hi Jack, I have addressed John 1:1 for you:
http://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/john-11-the-logos-is-divine-and-not-god/
July 7, 2009 at 2:52 am
Sorry Muslims for responding… I’m not a Muslim – but I’ve talked with them enough to know a general Islamic response…
How it was explained to me… was not that Allah couldn’t become a man.. but rather Allah can but it is unfitting for His majesty to lower Himself to a presence that isn’t All Powerful…
In Islam.. God is so high above everything, He just wouldn’t do it…
However, to a Judo-Christian aspect, it would be fitting for God’s character to do something like that…
There are many cases were the LORD directly interacted with His people – lowering Himself to our realm of existence…
Depending on interpretation, God ate food and washed His feet with Abraham and God also walked as a man and talked with other prophets in a similar way…
We Christians can easily explain these Old Testament passages to say that God did this though Jesus who always existed…
Because as mortal men we cannot see the face of the Father and live…
July 7, 2009 at 4:41 am
You are totally and utterly wrong in saying that in the “Judeo-Christian” tradition God actually came down(on earth) to interact directly with people as a human being. I suggest you read my article on ‘God is not a man” on unveiling-christianity to get a better idea of the Judeo tradition concerning God becoming a man. All those passages that seem to indicate God appearing physically in the form of man before men(his creation) like Genesis 18 has never been understood by Rabbinical commentaries in the manner that Christians have.