Analysing
Matt 28:19
By A. Plowman
The EVIDENCE
here presented will be of four kinds:
1.) MSS
2.) Versions
3.) Quotations
4.) Internal Evidence
Most Bible helps contain a brief explanation of the methods of Textual
Criticism. For example, SWETE, in the "Aids to the Student" in the
Variorum Bible says:
"The text of the New Testament rests upon the combined testimony of
streams of documentary evidence--extant Mss, of the Greek original, ancient
versions, and "patristic" quotations, i.e. passages cited by a
succession of ancient Christian writers known as "The Fathers."
Concerning the MSS: "The autographs of the New Testament Scriptures
were probably lost within a few years after they were written. No early
Christian writer appeals to them as still existing, ...men could not anticipate
their importance to posterity."
Concerning the Versions: "Next in importance to the MSS, channels
for the transmission of the text of the Greek Testament, must be placed the
ancient Versions, which were made from the Greek manuscripts, in most cases
older than any which we now possess. The old Latin and Syriac Versions belong
to the second century, and carry us back to the lifetime of some of the
immediate successors of the Apostles."
Concerning the Patristic writings: "So extensive are the quotations of
the New Testament in the Greek and Latin Christian writers of the first five
centuries that it would have been possible, in the event of all the MSS. of the
Cannon having perished, to recover nearly the whole of the text from this
source alone, ...there remains a large number of instances in which patristic
authority goes far to turn the scale in favor of a disputed reading, or against
it."
As to Matthew 28:19: "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
says--It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view. If it were
undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is
impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical
criticism."
(Author's note: The presence of the word *baptising* in Matthew 28:19 is also
disputed, but we are not now concerned with this point: many other passages
uphold the truth concerning Baptism).
Whether or not the name-phrase of Matthew 28:19 is genuine or spurious can be decided only by
the evidence of the MSS., of the versions, of the Patristic Writings, and by
what is styled INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Let us therefore consider the evidence of the
MSS.
Evidence Of The
MSS
For the threefold name:
The two earliest MSS. extant (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), written in the 4th
century, both include the end of Matthew also contain the threefold name.
"In all extant MSS, ...the text is found in the traditional form
(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)."
Against the threefold name:
There is no evidence in the MSS discovered to date.
BUT--
It must be remembered that we have no manuscript that was written in the first,
second, or third centuries. There is a gap of the three whole centuries between
the writing of Matthew and the MSS that contain the threefold name
It must be remembered that no single MS. is free from textual error. Some have
errors peculiar to themselves, and some have whole families of MSS. have the
same errors. The textual critic aims to reproduce from an examination of all
the evidence what was probably the original words.
But from the facts stated, it is within possibility that all the existing MSS.
may have one or more textual errors in common. That fact must be admitted,
however reluctantly.
Another fact that we have to face is that during that time-gap of three hundred
years false teaching thrived and developed into the Great Apostasy.
Moreover--"The Greek MSS. of the text of the New Testament were often
altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to
them,and which they held to be the right readings (Dr. C. R. Gregory, one of
the greatest textual critics)." But this aspect is dealt with in a later
chapter.
Another writer has this to say: "A great step forward is taken when we
propose to allow MSS. weight, not according to their age, but according to the
age of the text which they contain. To Tregelles must be ascribed the honour of
introducing this method of procedure, which he appropriately called
"Comparative Criticism." It is a truly scientific method, and leads
us for the first time to safe results. ...But a little consideration will
satisfy us that as an engine of criticism,this method is far from perfect. It
will furnish us with a text that is demonstrably ancient, and this, as a step
towards the true text, is a very important gain. It is something to reach a
text that is certainly in the third or the second century. But this can be assumed
to be the autographic text ONLY. If we can demonstrate that the text current in
the second or third century was an absolutely pure text. So far from this,
however, there is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have
ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century. ...If our
touchstone only reveals to us texts that are ancient, we cannot hope to obtain
for our result anything but an ancient text. What we wish however, is not
merely an ancient but the true text."
Of course, when he speaks of "grossest errors" the writer is not
speaking of errors of teaching, but, as a textual critic, of errors int he text
itself.
The subject of the corruption of the text of Scripture concurrently with the
corruption of teaching in the apostate churches is dealt with in a later
chapter.
Before reaching any decision, let the reader consider the evidence of the
Versions, as some of them are earlier than any of the MSS.
But first let us see what happened to the ancient MSS.
What Happened
To The Earliest MSS?
Why have we no copies of the Scriptures written earlier than the 5th century
(except for the two which were written in the 4th century)?
The following quotation will supply the answer: "Diocletian in 303AD
ordered all the sacred books to be burnt, ...but enough survived to transmit
the text (Swete in Variorum "Aids")."
"One of the reasons why no early MSS. have been discovered is that they
were, when found, burned by the persecutors of the Christians: Eusebius writes:
"I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razzed to
their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire
in the open market place (H.E. viii 2.)."
"Among such senses he could not fail to learn what books men held to be
more precious that their lives (Dr. Westcott: General Survey of the History of
the Canon of the N.T., p. 383)."
Evidence Of The
Versions
For the threefold name:
All extant versions which contain the end of Matthew contain the threefold
name.
BUT--"In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional form,
though it must be remembered that the African old Latin and of the old Syriac
versions are 'defective at this point' (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).
Again, ...In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older
reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages
are GONE which contained the end of Matthew (F.C. Conybeare)."
So that we have no MS. earlier than the 4th century, and in the case of these
two earlier versions the end page of Matthew has been destroyed?
In these circumstances we must turn to the early quotations, styled the
"Patristic Writings" and examine their evidence, to see how they
quoted Matthew 28:19, and this we will proceed to do.
Evidence Of the Early Writers
"In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts
of the authenticity of the text Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence
against it,so weighty that in future the most conservative of divines will
shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more
enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the
three witnesses (F.C. Conybeare in Hibbert Journal)."
How true is this? What are the facts?
While no MS. of the first three centuries is inexistence, we do have the
writings of at least two men who did actually possess, or had access to MSS.
much earlier than our earliest now in existence. And there were others who
quoted the passage of Matthew 28:19 in those early times.
Who were these men? When did they write? Has they access to very early MSS.?
Were they reliable and exact? How did they quote Matthew 28:19? These are the questions that must be
answered.
It is proposed to being forward evidence from the following,either to direct
quotation form their writings, or indirectly through the writings of their
contemporaries, viz. Eusebius of Caesarea, the unknown author of De
Rebaptismate, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Justin martyr, Macedonius,
Eunomius and Aphraates.
BUT FIRST A CLARIFICATION--Let it be stated emphatically, that if the question
under consideration were one of theology, the evidence of these
"Fathers" would be of no value whatever. Our doctrine must be
obtained from the pure Word of God alone, and not from any other source. These
so-called "Fathers" lived in an age of theological darkness, and when
we have the light of Scripture it is folly to search among the dim candle-lit
darkness of the theologians. Our concern is to find out what Matthew wrote at
the end of his book.
Before dealing with the other writers, let us examine Eusebius as to his
integrity and reliability as a witness, seeing that in this enquiry he is a key
witness.
Eusebius As
A Witness
There were
several men of this name. The one with whom we are concerned is known as
Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea. He was born about 270 A.D. and died
about 340 A.D. He lived in times of gross spiritual darkness, he was a
Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene
Creed. Here follows the opinion of historians and others concerning him.
"Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so
many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which must have perished had he
not collected and edited them" (Robert Roberts, Good Company, vol. III,
page 10).
"Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned
theologian of his time... worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word
of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. Eusebius...relies throughout
only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he
cannot find sufficient testimony" (E. K. in the Christadelphian
Monatshefte, Aug 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June 1924).
"Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Caesarea in
"Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of
the New Testament" (Dr. Westcott, General Survey of the History of the
Canon of the New Testament, page 108).
"The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was
Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent
judgement. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the
second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished,
and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if somewhat confused, and at
time not a little prejudice, erudition" (Peake's Bible Commentary,
1929,page 596).
"Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly
cited or referred to as read (by Eusebius). In many instances he would read an
entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have
searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose... Under the
second head the most vital question if the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper
with his material or not? The sarcasm of GIBBON (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is
well known... the passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his
imputation...Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins... in general
terms, without entering into details...but it leaves no imputation on his
honesty" (Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature).
"Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for
composing a correct history which his age afforded." (J. L. Mosheim: an
editoral note).
"Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood
in the Greek MSS, from about 300-340, none is so important as Eusebius of
Caesarea, for he lived in the greatest Christian library of that age, that
namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say
that from this single collection of manuscripts at
So much for the honesty, ability, and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the text of the New Testament. Now we are ready to consider his evidence on the text of Matthew 28:19.
The Evidence Of Eusebius
Having introduced the first witness, it is time to ascertain what he wrote
concerning the text of Matthew 28:19.
According to the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius among his
many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy
Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the falsifications denounce by
him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19."
Persistent inquiry has failed to trace the compilation referred to, and
Knupfer, the Editor, has left his last Canadian address without a trace. But
various authorities mention "a work entitled DISCREPANCIES IN THE GOSPELS
or QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS ON SOME POINTS IN THE GOSPEL HISTORY" and
another work on THE CONCLUDING SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS.
According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in
his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the
Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous
history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have,
after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of
Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: "
"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to
observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."
I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published
by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft, edited by Erwin Preuschen in
"For he did not enjoin them 'to make disciples of all nations' simply and
without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so
great was the virtue attached to his appellation that the Apostle says, God
bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee
shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It was right
therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name
but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, Go ye and make
disciples of all nations in my name."
"Conybeare proceeds: (in Hibbert Journal, 1902, p 105): "It is
evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices
collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great
predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard, and knew nothing
until he had visited
In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare writes: "It is
clear, therefore, that the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor,
Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original
reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the
Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of
many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus
this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself,
had noticed the Eusebian form of reading."
An objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, "who argues that
Eusebius found the Testus Receptus (traditional texxt) in his manuscripts, but
substituted the shorter formula in his works for fear of vulgarising and
divulging the sacred Trinitarian formula." It is interesting to find a
modern Bishop reviving the very argument used 150 years before, in support of
the forged text of 1 John 5--
"Bengel ...allowed that the words (the Three Witnesses) were in no genuine
MSS... surely, then, the verse is spurious! No: this learned man finds a way of
escape. The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret
discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was
gradually lost. Under what a want of evidence must a critic labor who resorts
to such an argument" --Porson (Preface to his letters)!
Conybeare continues, refuting the arguments of the Bishop of Ely. "It is
sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius's argument, when he cites the
text, involves the text 'in my name.' For, he ask, 'in whose name?' and answers
that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10."
The Ency. Rel. and Ethics states:
"The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between
'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my
name,' the latter form being the more frequent."
Now let us look at the other early writers who quote Matthew 28:19.
EVIDENCE OF
OTHER WRITERS
AUTHOR OF DE REBAPTISMATE
"The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so
understood them, and dwells at length on 'the power of the name of Jesus
invoked upon a man by Baptism" (De Rebaptismate 6.7 Smith's Dictionary of
the Bible, Vol. i, p. 352).
ORIGEN
"In Origin's works as preserved in Greek, the first part of the verse is
thrice adduced, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations;'
and that in itself suggests that his text has been censured, and words which
followed, 'in my name,' struck out" (Conybeare)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew
xxviii. 19 is once cited; but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not
as from the canonical text, as follows: 'And to the apostles he gives the
command. Going around preaching ye and baptize those who believe in the name of
father and son and holy spirit" (Excerpta, cap. 76, ed. Sylb. p. 987;
--Conybeare).
JUSTIN MARTYR
"Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Christ as a proof of the necessity of
regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to
justify the practice of baptism and the use of the truine formula. This
certainly suggest that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19" (Ency. Rel. and Ethics, p 380)
"In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage
which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew xxviii. 19 by various
scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it
an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin's dialogue with
Trypho 39, p. 258: 'God hath not yet inflicted no inflicts the judgment, as
knowing of some that still even to-day are being made disciples in the name of
his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts
each as they be worthy, being illumined by the name of this Christ.' The
objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation of our text
was that they ignored the formula 'baptising them in the name of the Father and
Son and holy Spirit.' But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes
this difficulty; and Justin is seen to have had the same text as early as the
year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300-340"
(--Conybeare (Hibbert Journal p 106).
MACEDONIUS
"We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was
writing early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could
insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the
orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of heretics were
valid, if the name of Jesus alone was invoked" (However, this decision did
not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire
Celtic Church for its adhesion to the old use of invoking the one name). In the
last half of the fourth century the text "in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the holy Ghost" was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox
against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called pneumao-machi or fighters
against the Holy Spirit, because they declined to include the Spirit in a
Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father
and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text of the N.T. authorized such a
co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their
texts agreed with that of Eusebius" --F.C. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal,
page 107).
EUNOMIUS
"Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out.
CYPRIAN (Ep.73) and the APOSTOLIC CANONS (no. 50) combat the shorter formula,
thereby attesting its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of Canon Apostolic
50 runs:
'If any Bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms 'of one initiation, but
one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be
deposed.'
"This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24) 'for they
baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ.' They accordingly
used single immersion only" Ency. Biblica (Art. Baptism).
APHRAATES
"There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is
Aphraates the Syriac father who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites our text in
a formal manner as follows:
'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in
"The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebius reading 'in my name.'
But in any case they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to
baptise in the triune name. Were the reading of Aphraates an isolated fact, we
might regard it as a loose citation, but in presence of the Eusebian and
Justinian text this is impossible." --Conybeare (THJ) page 107
How
Biblical MSS Were Altered When The Great Apostasy Began
The following
quotations will show the ease with which scribes freely altered the MSS of the
New Testament, so unlike the scribes and custodians of the Old Testament
Scriptures who copied the holy Writings with reverence and strict accuracy.
These quotations will also show the early start of the practice of trine
immersion at the time when the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated.
They will also show how the New Testament writings were made to conform to
traditional practice.
CONYBEARE
"In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single
manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is
not surprising for as Dr. C. R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual
critics, reminds us, 'the Greek MSS of the text of the New Testament were often
altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to
them,' and which they held to be the right readings. Canon and Text of the N T,
1907, page 424."
"These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the
Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and interpolate by
orthodox copyist. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases,
with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain
many passages which have not been so corrected, but where we cannot today
expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasis this point, because Drs.
Westcott and Hort used to say that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal
changes having been made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the
opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, J.
Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolph Harnack, to mention only four names, do not
scruple to recognize the fact"
[While this is perfectly true, nevertheless "There are a number of reasons
why we can feel confident about the general reliability of our
translations." Peter Watkins, 'Bridging the Gap' in The Christadelphian,
January 1962, pp. 4-8.]
FRATERNAL VISITOR (1924, p. 148)
"Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were
completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and
not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius,
therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and
of the newly-arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than
once." Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian Monatshefte, 1924, page
148.
WHISTON
"We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruption's
brought into the Scriptures... by Athanasius, and relating to the Doctrine of
the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know
of, any such interpolations and corruption, made in any one of them by either
the Eusebians or Arians" Second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, page
15.
SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES [Art. Baptism Sec. 50]
"While trine immersion was thus an all but universal practice, Eunomius
(circ. 360) appears to have been the first to introduce simple immersion 'unto
the death of Christ' ...This practice was condemned on pain of degradation, by
the Canon Apost. 46 (al 50). But it comes before us again about a century later
in
"In the '
"In the
Eastern Churches, trine immersion is regarded as the only valid form of
baptism" [Vol. 1. p. 243 fn].
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
"The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient int he Church.
...Its object is, of course, to honor the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity in
whose name it is conferred" [p. 262].
ENCY.
RELIGION AND ETHICS
"If it be thought as many critics think, that no MS represents more than
comparatively late recessions of the text, it is necessary to set against the
mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It seems
easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence
working on the 'Eusebian' text, than that the latter arose out of the former in
spite of it" [Art. Baptism].
CONYBEARE
"The exclusive survival of (3) in all MSS., both Greek and Latin, need not
cause surprise. In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an
older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS., the pages
are gone which contained the end of Matthew. But in any case the conversion of
Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at
that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. We
have no codex older than the year 400, if so old; and long before that time the
question of the inclusion of the holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had
been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominate party could not but
make its way into every codex, irrespectively of its textual affinities"
[Hibbert Journal].
ROBERT ROBERTS
"Athanasius... met Flaivan, the author of the Doxology, which has since
been universal in Christendom: 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, etc.'
This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology: 'Glory to the Father, by
the Son, in the Holy Spirit" [Robert Roberts, Good Company, Vol. iii, p.
49].
WHISTON
"The Eusebians... sometimes named the very time when, the place where, and
the person whom they (i.e. forms of doxology) were first introduced... thus
Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures us in PHOTIUS'S EXTRACTS that
A.D. 348 or thereabouts, Flavianus, Patriarche of Antioch, got a multitude of
monks together, and did there first use this public doxology, 'Glory be to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit." [Second Letter concerning
the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, p.17].
"There are two or three insertions in the NT which have been supposed to
have their origin in the ecclesiastical usage. The words in question, being
familiarly known in a particular connection, were perhaps noted in the margin
of some copy, and thence became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a
transcriber's own familiarity with the words might have led to his inserting
them. This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns the Doxology at the
close of the Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6, which is wanting most of the best
authorities. Perhaps also Acts
The reader having reviewed the evidence of the MSS, of the Versions and of the
Patristic writings, will no doubt have reached the conclusion that in the early
centuries some copies of Matthew did not contain the triune name clause. In
legal practice, where copies of the same lost document vary, resource is had to
what is called "Internal Evidence," that is, a comparison with the
rest of the text of the document that is not in dispute, in order to ascertain
which of the variant readings is the more likely. Our next chapter, therefore
will set forth some of this Internal Evidence.
Internal Evidence
This method is useful in ascertaining the original text of Scripture where two
or more readings obtrude.
As an example, take the word "broken" in 1 Cor. 11:24. Most versions include the word (in Greek) but
the best MSS at their first writing (i.e. before being altered by a later hand)
omit the word.
Which is correct?
Now the following Scriptures are suffice to decide the point: Ex. 12:46; Nu. 9:12; Ps. 34:20; Jn 19:36.
But in addition we have a verbatim record of the exact words of Jesus in Lu.
Certain ancient Greek MSS leave a blank space where this word appears in other
copies. The structure of the sentence in Greek requires some word to be
inserted. Evidently, some scribe, seeing this space (honestly left blank by
some other copyist who refrained from inserting a word of their own to fill the
gap) made a guess and slipped in the word for "broken," thus starting
an error which has continued right up to the AV, and persists in Church
services throughout Christendom.
The Revised Version reads "which is for you." It would have been more
correct, however to have left the gap that is found in the early MSS.
So, having found that in the first three centuries there existed copies of
Matthew which at 28:19 did not include the triune-name, and being very well
aware that other copies of Matthew, and in fact, all the later copies, did
include the threefold name, we must have recourse to INTERNAL EVIDENCE to
decide which is the true reading.
ONE TEST is that of the CONTEXT
Examining the context, we find that in the AV the sense of the passage is
hindered, but if we read as under, the whole context fits together and the
tenor of the instruction is complete:
"All power is given unto ME ... go therefore... baptizing in MY name,
teaching them... whatsoever I have commanded... I am with you..."
ANOTHER TEST is that of FREQUENCY
Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" used
elsewhere in Scripture? NOT ONCE!
Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? YES! 17
times!
Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5
Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17
Luke 9:48; 21:8
John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26, etc..
ANOTHER TEST is that of ARGUMENT
Is any argument is Scripture based on the fact of the threefold name, or of
baptism in the threefold name?
None whatever!
Is any argument in Scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus?
Yes! This is the argument in 1 Cor. 1:13:
"Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
From this argument, if carefully analyzed, it will appear that believers ought
to be baptized in the name of that One who was crucified for them. The Father,
in His amazing love, gave us His beloved Son, who by the Spirit was raised to
incorruptibility, but it is the Lord Himself who was crucified, and in HIS
name, therefore, must believers be baptized in water.
Dr. Thomas says: "There is but one way for a believer of the things
concerning the
"There is none other name under heaven" no other name or names
"given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12.
"As for its significance: baptism is linked inseparably with the death of
Christ it is the means of the believer's identification with the Lord's
death" [God's Way, p190].
Now the Father did not die, nor did the Spirit.
"Buried with him" (not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) Rom. 6:3-5.
Robert Roberts uses this argument: "According to trine-immersion, it is
not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from his
position as the connecting link-the door of entrance the 'new and living way.'
And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition
to the apostolic declaration, 'that there is none other name (other than the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must
be saved" [The True Nature of Baptism, p. 13].
This, of course, is the same argument as Paul's (see above), and although R.R.
did not so intend, his argument is equally effective against the use of the
triune name as against the practice of triune-immersion. Were ye baptized in
the name of Paul, or the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any
other name that displaces Christ from his position as the 'connecting link,' as
the ONLY name for salvation? That is the argument, and confirms the genuine
text of Matthew 28:19 to contain the phrase "in my name."
ANOTHER TEST is that of ANALOGY
Is there anything in Scripture analogous to baptism in the Trine name?
NO!
Is there anything analogous to baptism in the name of Jesus?
YES! The Father sent the Holy Spirit and baptized the waiting disciples with
the Spirit in the name of Jesus. John 14:26. There is a reason for this. The Holy Spirit is
the promise (Acts 2:33) which Christ received on ascending to the Father
and only those who were in the corporate body of Christ, the Ecclesia, which is
His Body-only those could receive the Gift, and only because they were in that
one Body. The Lord Jesus Christ is the "connecting link" both for
baptism in water and for baptism in spirit" [John 3:5].
ANOTHER TEST is that of CONSEQUENCE
In being baptized, do we put on the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
NO!
Do we put on the name of Jesus?
Dr. Thomas wrote: "Believers of the Gospel Jesus preached are justified by
faith through HIS name; that is, their Abrahamic faith and disposition are counted
to them for repentance and the remission of sins, in the act of putting on the
name of Jesus, the Christ" [Revealed Mystery, Art. XLIII].
The Lord said, "I am in my Father, and ye in me" [John 14:20]. Not until the Thousand years have passed, and
the Lord Jesus Christ returns his "Kingdom to God, even the Father" 1 Co. 15:24-28, shall God be all and in all. Till then we
may not aspire to be "in the Father."
Believers bear the name of JESUS now, and so that name is not mentioned in Re. 3:12. Believers do not now bear the name of the Father,
nor the new name of Jesus, nor the name of the City of
[See also the excellent article entitled NOTES ON AN INTERESTING BIBLE IDIOM by
H.A. WHITTAKER in the CHRISTADELPHIAN for Sept., 1959, pp. 393-4].
ANOTHER TEST is that of PRACTICE
Did the Disciples afterwards baptize in the threefold name?
NEVER!
Did they baptize in the name of Jesus?
ALWAYS! Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, etc..
ANOTHER TEST is that of SIMILARITY OF ACTION
Baptism is a symbolic rite. The only other symbolic rite of the Ecclesia is
that of breaking bread.
The latter is the Communion of those who have experienced the former: and none
else.
This is the Lord's supper, not that of the trinity! (My body, My blood)
ANOTHER TEST is that of SIGNIFICANCE
One significance involved is that of the forgiveness of sins.
John did "preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins." Jesus had no sins to be remitted. Neither had he whereof to repent.
When a man brought a lamb to the priest, he laid his hands upon the lamb, and
the lamb was slain, and so the man received a remission of his sins. Without
the laying on of hands the sin could not have been transferred to the lamb.
This is the significance of the baptism of Jesus by John. When we were baptized
(as when John's disciples were baptized), our sins were loosed, remitted,
washed away, and we arose sinless. The Lord entered the water of baptism to
take upon himself those very sins. He entered sinless and emerged bearing the
sins of the whole world!
How do we know?
It was revealed to John, who exclaimed. "Behold the Lamb of God which
taketh away the sins of the world" [John 1:29].
It was JESUS alone (and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who was baptized,
and became the Lamb of God to take away the sins.
So that the significance here outlined requires the phrase in Matthew 28:19 to be "in my name."
ANOTHER TEST is that of PARALLEL ACCOUNTS
Now it happens that Matthew was not alone in recording the words of Jesus before
his ascension. Let us compare the parallel accounts of Luke 24:46-47: who writes in the third person:
"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS NAME
among all nations."
This passage therefore restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19 -"in my name."
Futhermore, the last twelve verses of Mark record the last discourse of Jesus
before his ascension. If these are to be regarded as the inspired writing of
Mark himself, then we have yet another witness to the correct text, for Mark,
after using similar words to Matthew:--
"go ye ...all the world ...preach ....Every creature...baptize..."
includes not the triune name but the phrase--"in my name."
ANOTHER TEST is that of COMPLEMENTARY CITATIONS
There is a striking resemblance between Matthew 28:19 and Romans 1:4-5; the former contains the Commision of Christ
to his Apostles, while the latter is Paul's understanding and acceptance of his
own Commission as an Apostle.
Matthew 28:18-20
All POWER is given unto ME
Go ye
teaching them to observe
all nations Romans 1:4-5
.the Son of God with POWER
received....apostleship
for obedience to the faith
all nations
And then follows in Romans 1:5,
not the triune name, but the phrase-"HIS NAME."
ANOTHER TEST is that of PRINCIPLE
It is written--
"Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord
Jesus" [Colossians 3:17].
Now here is a principle laid down, and the comprehensive word
"whatsoever" certainly includes baptism, which is a rite involving
both word and deed.
Now of the alternative readings of Matthew 28:19, the threefold name is clearly not in
accordance with the above principle. The shorter phrase is. This item of
Internal Evidence, therefore, proves which of the two variant readings is the
spurious one.
That this is correct, is proved by other Scripture. It was Paul who enunciated
the Principle. Did it, in his opinion, include baptism? Ac 19:3-5 supplies the answer. The baptism of John, like
the Baptism of Jesus (then and now), was a baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins. Mk 1:4, Ac 2:38-39. And John preached also the coming of
the Messiah who should baptize with the Holy Spirit. The difference between the
baptism of John and baptism after Pentecost is that the latter was in the name
of JESUS.
NO OTHER DIFFERENCE IS SHOWN IN SCRIPTURE. Now it is written of the disciples
at
This test provides a doubly-strong proof of the authenticity of the phrase
"in my name" in Matthew 28:19.
God foreknew the record of the parting words of Jesus to his Disciples would be
tampered with. He, in His wisdom, provided a remedy for those who have
"eyes to see" in providing the principle enunciated by Paul in Col.
3:17 and the record of Paul's application of that Principle in Acts 19:3-5.
The
Opinions Of Others
Sufficient evidence has been produced to enable the reader to decide whether or
not the triune-name in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. The following opinions are
given by way of means of interest. But the reader should not be influenced by
them. He should make his own judgement on the evidence before reading further.
"The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual
Criticism, Literary Criticism, and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly
against the view that Matthew 28:19 (in the AV) represents the exact words of
Christ" [Art. Baptism: Early Christians].
DR. PEAKE
"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" [Bible Commentary, p. 723.
F. WHITELEY in THE TESTIMONY
"There is the 'triune' baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken
reed when thoroughly investigated, but ... we may leave it for separate
treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot find one
single instance in Acts or the Epistles of the words ever being used at any of
the many baptism recorded, notwithstanding Christ's (seemingly) explicit
command at the end of Matthew's Gospel" [The Testimony (Oct. 1959) p. 351.
Art. Back to
WILLIAMS R.R.
"The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence
of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in
the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism
suggest that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian
reference" [Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29].
DEAN STANLEY
"Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere
administered in the threefold name... soon superseded the simpler form of that
in the Name of the Lord Jesus only" [Christian Institutions].
E.K. in the FRATERNAL VISITOR
"The striking contrast and the illogical internal coherence of the
passage... lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interest
of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to
corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This
increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness
of the passage."
Art. The Question of the Trinity and Matthew 28:19. 1924, pp. 147-151, trans from the
Christadelphian Monatshefte.
DR. ROBERT YOUNG
In his Literal Translation of the Bible Dr. Robert Young places the triune name
in Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to
be of doubtful authenticity.
JAMES MARTINEAU
"The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he
commissioned his disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself
by speaking in the Triniitarian language of the next century, and compels us to
see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the
Founder Himself" [Seat of Authority, 1905, p. 568].
BLACK'S BIBLE DICTIONARY
"The Trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent
Christian mind."
ENCY. RELIGION AND ETHICS
"The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune
name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other
formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition."
PROF. HARNACK
Dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being "no word of the
Lord" [History of Dogma )German edn. i 68).
F. WHITELEY in THE TESTIMONY
"Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that
apostles and epistles never once employ 'the Triune Name' of Matthew 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing Trinity idea was
being resisted by Church in 4th century, admit (e.g. Peake) 'the command to
baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion,' but prior to
oldest yet known Ms. (4th Century). (Its sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proved interpolation). Eusebius (A.D.
264-340) denounces the Triune form as spurious, Matthew's actual writing having
been 'in my name'." [Footnotes to Art: Baptism (5) in The Testimony, Aug.,
1958].
Is It Important?
That is to say, is it important whether we amend the text of Matthew 28:19 or not?
The man whose standard of judgement is his own ideas will answer in the
negative. But those who acknowledge that God's thoughts are not our thoughts
will carefully consider the matter in light of Scripture, and remember that in
the matter of divinely appointed symbolic actions, the details are of the greatest
importance. Matthew 28:19 has to do with such a symbolic action.
For example:
(a) Cain's offering lacked blood and was rejected.
(b) The Sabbath stick gatherer forfeited his life.
(c) Uzzah died for touching the Ark.
Maybe God was displeased because they marred the portrait in type of Christ, as
to (a) his atonement by blood, (b) his millennial rest, and (c) his chosen
ones.
Now every symbolic action required by God has not only one or more
significance, but is the actual CAUSE of the very real END-EFFECT.
1. When Joshua pointed his spear there was victory, Jos. 8:18-19
2. Only three victories were given to Joash when he struck the ground but
trice, 2 Ki. 13:19-25
3. The Passover Lamb was to be without blemish, Ex. 12:5 (even as Christ), if the household was to be
preserved …from the death angel.
Nothing in God's ritual is without meaning or results. When he speaks-- it is
done! Christ called Lazareth and -Lazareth came forth! In matters of ritual
(baptism and breaking bread) we are dealing with God's ritual, not man's such
as rituals of the Roman Catholic Church which, being man made, has no further
effect or results.
So that, on the one hand, any deviation from the appointed details is
displeasing to God, and very definitely so, and on the other hand, obedience to
the divinely appointed details will accomplish that where unto they were sent.
Now in the matter of our inquiry, it is important to settle what is the word of
God, in order that we may obey. This is the purpose of De. 4:2, "Ye shall not add... neither... diminish
ought... that ye may keep the commandments." First of all therefore, we
should expunge the spurious phrase in Matthew 28:19, and with a zeal like that of our Master in
expelling those who ought not to have been in God's temple, or like that of
Nehemiah in casting out Tobiah's "stuff."
Brother Plowman's article is not sound.
The argument regarding Eusebius (first proposed by Coneybeare in 1901), is
itself incorrect. It is based on an inaccurate reading of Eusebiu's work
'Demonstratio Evangelica' by Coneybeare, and has been discarded by modern
textual criticism. Eusebius actually quotes the text as we have it in the
KJV, three times in his later works.
It's worth noting that the passage
appears in Ignatius ('Epistle to the Philippians', chapter II, late 1st
century), in Tertullian ('On Baptism', chapter XIII, 185 AD), and in Hippolytus
('Against Noetus', 200 AD), all of whom predate Eusebius significantly, and
testify to an established text containing the longer reading as we have it in
the KJV.
See attached for comments from The Christadelphian Magazine on the issue
(interesting to see the level of agreement among brethren from many earlier
generations).
TRIUNE-IMMERSIONISM
N.L.B.—“Baptizing in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” does not mean three acts of
immersion. This is shown by Paul’s explanation of what immersion signifies. He
says it is a being “baptized into the death of Christ,” a being “planted
in the likeness of his death ” ( Rom. 6:4 ); a being buried with
Christ.—( Col. 2:12 .) There were not three deaths but only one, nor three
burials, but only one. Three acts of baptism would, therefore, be not a
likeness but an unlikeness of what it relates to. One act of baptism
corresponds with the death and burial of Christ, and with the description of
all the cases of immersion recorded in the “New Testament.” How then come the
three names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be mentioned by Christ in
connection with this one act? Because they are all concurrently concerned in
the matter with which the act establishes a connection. What is this? Christ
the Saviour. Why should not his name be mentioned alone? Because he was not
alone. He was the Father manifested among men by the Spirit for their
salvation, that the glory might be to the name of Yah —the Creator and Upholder. The single mention of the Son
would have tended to conceal the great truth which Jesus constantly
proclaimed—that of himself he was nothing: that the Father within him was the
Doer and the Speaker; and that by the Spirit proceeding from the Father, was
this great marvel achieved through the Son among men. The significance of the
formula—“Father, Son and Holy Spirit”—is, therefore, doctrinal. The use of it
tends to keep in view the great fact that there is but one God — one Redeemer;
and that Jesus is not another, but the Eternal One in manifestation, accomplishing
the great work of salvation by his Eternal Spirit, operative through the seed
of David according to the flesh. The name of Jesus is, therefore, the Father’s
name, placed in a man by the Spirit. This is the name of salvation, than which,
there is none other given among men. Baptism is the act of induction into it,
and, therefore, a baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit. In the early ages, when many winds of false doctrine were
raised by Scripture wresters, a three-fold immersion was deduced from this form
of words, and practised by many. Some in our day are reviving the absurd,
unmeaning and unscriptural practice— trine-immersionists
, who talk of “one baptism in three immersions.” They might just as well talk
of “one immersion in three immersions.” The precedents of a benighted
ecclesiastical antiquity are miserable ground on which to rest our faith and
practice. One baptism, which is equivalent to one immersion, was the simple,
sensible, apostolic practice from which wise men will not depart.
THE LORD’S COMMAND TO BAPTIZE
1—THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” ( Matt. 28 : 18–20 ).
THE command of the Risen Lord was given with the fullness of
authority in heaven and in earth which had been vested in him. With that
authority he commissioned the disciples no longer to confine their ministry to
the “lost sheep of the house of
The words “baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, as one commentator
has said, “describe, not a formula to be used at baptism, but the end and aim
which would be secured in and through baptism”. 1 There is no set
formula for baptism; there is nothing magical in a form of words, though it is
a fitting practice to use the words of the Lord so that what is done is done in
the full Name, and acknowledges the full scope of the fellowship.
In the last sixty years, however,
verse 19 , which contains both the command to baptize and the threefold name,
has been attacked on grounds both of textual and historical criticism, and a
reading has been advanced which omits both elements of the command. It is
necessary to distinguish between the differing grounds of criticism, since only
a few scholars have questioned that the words were actually a part of the text
of Matthew, while a larger number have doubted whether Jesus spoke them. 2
To parade a list of names of eminent critics of the passage without making this
distinction is misleading.
Chief of the textual critics to
attack the passage was F. C. Coneybeare (1856–1924), a scholar in Armenian MSS.
who had rationalist sympathies and was at one time a member of the Rationalist
Press Association. 1 In the Hibbert Journal of 1902
Conybeare wrote an article entitled “Three early doctrinal modifications of the
text of the Gospel”. The three passages he discussed were Matt. 1 : 16 , in
which he contended for a variant reading noted in the R.V. margin, eliminating
mention of the Virgin Birth; Matt. 28 : 19 ; and Matt. 19 : 17 , where Matthew
reads “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” while the parallels
in Mark and Luke are “Why callest thou me good?” Only in the first of these
could he cite any variant in the Greek text itself.
On Matt. 28 : 19 he relied mainly,
if not wholly, on a reading in one “Early Father”, the prolific writer
Eusebius. Conybeare wrote: “Eusebius cites it again and again in works written
between 300 and 336 . . . I have after a moderate search in these works of
Eusebius found 18 citations of Matt. 28 : 19 , and always in the following
form: ‘Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name , teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.’” Conybeare contended
that it was only after attending the Council of Niceae that “in two
controversial works of his extreme old age” Eusebius used the common reading.
He argued that it was “then being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy”; and
that Eusebius testified to an earlier reading which “the vigilance of the
church” had not allowed to escape.
Conybeare concluded: “It may be
confidently predicted that when the Greek and Latin fathers who wrote before
400 have been more carefully edited than hitherto from the best codices, scores
of old readings will be restored in the text of the New Testament of which no
trace remains in any Greek MS.”
Sixty years later this “confident
prediction” remains unfulfilled, and the general dependability of the New
Testament text stands in higher repute than it has done among critics for a
century. In his day Conybeare could say that none of the existing N.T.
manuscripts went beyond the fourth century of the Christian era. But when this
statement was repeated by Bishop Barnes in his Rise of Christianity
(1947), the greatest textual scholar of the time, Sir Frederic Kenyon, replied:
“In view of the discovery of the Chester Beatty papyri, this is simply untrue .
. . It would have been more true to say that it must never be forgotten that we
now have substantial portions of the Gospels, Acts and Revelation, and an
almost complete manuscript of the Pauline Epistles, going back to the beginning
of the third century, which in spite of verbal variations not affecting
doctrine guarantee the integrity of the tradition and the substantial
trustworthiness of the record of the texts of the books as they originally took
shape.” 2 Since Kenyon wrote there have been further discoveries,
including the almost complete Bodmer papyrus of John’s Gospel now in
Within a few years Dr. F. H. Chase
was able to write that Conybeare’s conclusions on Matt. 28 : 19 had been
“controverted in an able and learned article by Professor Riggenbach of
In
On the textual evidence he was brief
but weighty: there is in fact little to be said, for the testimony of Greek
manuscripts is unanimous. He wrote, “I believe that it is only when we shut our
eyes to the facts that we can persuade ourselves, or allow ourselves to be
persuaded, that it is possible for words to have been interpolated in the text
of the Gospels without a trace of their true character surviving in MSS.”
Versions, and in statements of the Fathers . . . The whole evidence—such I believe
must be the verdict of scientific criticism—establishes without a shadow of
doubt or uncertainty the genuineness of Matt. 28 : 19 .” With that emphatic
verdict, strengthened by later MS. discovery, we might surely rest content.
Conybeare makes a comparison between
this text and the “three witnesses” passage in 1 John 5 : 7 , 8 , but he is
incorrect in saying that “until the middle of the nineteenth century” they
shared the task of furnishing scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the
Trinity. The three witnesses passage was denounced by Gibbon in the Decline
and Fall , and he received weighty support from one of the most celebrated
of Greek scholars, Richard Porson of
As far back as the ninth century the
British scholar Alcuin omitted the “three witnesses” passage from the text of
the Latin which he prepared for the Emperor Charlemagne; and Erasmus omitted it
from the first and second editions of his Greek text, and only inserted it in
his third edition under pressure. Luther omitted it from his German version.
The evidence in the two cases is almost exactly opposite: all Greek texts, all
early versions, and many early Fathers from Justin and Irenaeus onwards contain
the Matthew passage or allusions to it; no Greek MS. contains the “three
witnesses” except two which are very late and critically worthless; no version
except the Vulgate (and even there it is an interpolation), and no writer of
the first five centuries. Comparison of the two instances is therefore grossly
misleading.
The main attack on Matt. 28 : 19
comes on the ground of an alleged conflict with Acts, which in reference to
baptism mentions only “the name of Jesus Christ” or “of the Lord Jesus”. But
the very early Christian document the Didachē (“Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles”), quotes Matt. 28 : 19 word for word when describing the practice
of baptism, but in an incidental reference elsewhere has “baptized in the name
of the Lord”. 4 The reasonable interpretation is that the writer saw no
conflict between the briefer and the fuller forms. Why then should the Apostles
or Luke in Acts? The real reason for finding a conflict is to be found in
theories of the development of the Church held by certain critics from Harnack
onwards. Among Christadelphians the reason is admittedly uneasiness with a
passage which may be given a Trinitarian interpretation.
On both textual and historical
grounds, therefore, it can be said that the evidence is completely in favour of
Matt. 28 : 19 as it stands in our Bibles, with which modern versions agree
(including that of the Jew Hugh Schonfeld). Doctrinal questions will be
considered in a further article.
L. G.
Sargent.
THE
CHRISTADELPHIAN
( He is not ashamed to call them
brethren —HEB.
April , 1962
THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA
SOME brethren and sisters have been disturbed by a recently
circulated pamphlet which questions the threefold baptismal formula in Matt. 28
: 19 and several brethren have suggested that a reference be made to it in The Christadelphian in view of the fact
that it has been a traditional practice among us to use the words of Matt. 28 :
19 at our baptisms. The pamphlet apart, the apparently Trinitarian character of
the language of Matt. 28 : 19 has naturally perturbed many readers. This is
evident from the number of times answers to questions dealing with this verse
have appeared in The Christadelphian
. They are like a recurring decimal. Those who possess a file for the last
sixty years will find the matter dealt with in 1906, page 25; 1910, page 170;
1924, page 456; 1935, page 27.
It is easy to couple Matt. 28 : 19
with the spurious passage in 1 John 5 : 7 and reject it outright as also
spurious. To do this is to be guilty of two errors: 1. It flies in the face of
textual evidence; 2. It ignores the fact that the formula provides a fulness of
statement on the significance of the Name which is missing in shorter
forms; it also ignores the fact that there are several other passages which
group together the Father, the Lord Jesus and the Spirit of God.
What are the facts concerning the
text? The textual evidence of the manuscripts is provided in the apparatus of
Tregelles’ Greek New Testament or, more briefly, in the Greek New
Testament published by the British and Foreign Bible Society.
Plummer sums up the evidence in his
Exegetical Commentary on Matthew: He says, “With regard to our Lord’s command
to baptize, as recorded here, several questions have been raised to which an
answer ought to be given. 1. Is verse 19 , as we have it in our Bibles, part of
the genuine text of Matt.? 2. If it is, does it give the substance of words
actually uttered by our Lord? 3. Does it order the use of a particular
baptismal formula?”
He answers emphatically on the
question of Text: “The question of the genuineness of the verse may be answered
with the utmost confidence. The verse is found in every extant Greek
Manuscript, whether uncial or cursive, and every extant Version, which contains
this portion of Matthew. In a few witnesses the conclusion of the Gospel is
wanting, but there is no reason for believing that in these witnesses the verse
or any portion of it was omitted. It has been argued by F. C. Conybeare (
Hibbert Journal , of Oct., 1902) and by Professor Lake (Inaugural Lecture
at Leiden, 27 Jan., 1904) that the clause, ‘baptizing them . . . Holy Spirit’
was very early interpolated for dogmatic reasons in some copies of Matthew, and
that it was not firmly established as part of this Gospel till after the
Council of Nicea. The chief argument is that Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea ( a.d. 313–319), where he had access to a
great library, often quotes this passage and habitually omits, or stops short
of, the words which speak of baptism. Therefore the original text was simply,
‘Go and make disciples of all nations’, perhaps with the addition ‘in My name’.
Dr. Chase has conclusively shown the fallacious character of the argument.
Eusebius quotes the verse, with the command to baptize into the name of the
Trinity, when he requires the command for this purpose; when he requires the
rest of the verse, but not the command, he omits the latter. It is incredible that
an interpolation of this character can have been made in a text of Matthew
without leaving a trace of its unauthenticity in a single manuscript or
Version. (See Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe , 2, page 153). The
evidence for its genuiness is overwhelming.”
We now ask, do the words provide a
formula for use? The answer from apostolic practice is “NO”. See Acts 3 : 38 ;
8 : 16 , 10 : 48 ; 19 : 5 ; Rom. 1 : 9 ; Gal. 3 : 27 .
On a matter of such importance as
this, one feels a repugnance to the idea, in view of the evident divine care
and preservation of the text of scripture, that this passage is either a
corruption or an interpolation. Doubts concerning the text should be received
with care.
Let us now quote a previous answer
by bro. C. C. Walker in 1906. Under the heading:
Baptismal
Formula
B.F.M. writes: What formula is used
in baptism in
Answer: We can only speak of the
practice in the
With regard to our correspondent’s
question as between Matt. 28 : 19 and Acts 8 : 16 , the following further
extract from the Guide (same page), is to the point: “As regards the
form of words, it is better to say, ‘baptized into the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ than simply ‘baptized into the Lord
Jesus’, for this reason. The first form of words keeps the truth concerning
Christ in the foreground—that he is the manifestation of the Father by the Holy
Spirit, and that what he did, he did not of himself as a man, whereas the
latter leaves the way open for the idea to grow up that Jesus came in his own
name (which he expressly says he did not), and not in his Father’s name (which
he expressly says he did). True, the formula is ‘orthodox’, but then it is also
apostolic, and essential to the full expression of the truth concerning Jesus.”
As to our correspondent’s last
question: it seems to contain a false assumption. The Acts of the Apostles
nowhere gives us the formula used . The expression, “They were baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus” ( Acts
The Johannine Comma
THERE are some passages in the Authorised Version of
Scripture which appear at first sight to give support to certain orthodox
doctrines. The version of Christ’s words to the thief on the cross is one
example and in 1 John 5:7 we find another. Sometimes our contention that the
translation is inaccurate or the verse has been interpolated is met with the
charge that we are only manipulating the text to suit our own interpretation.
For instance, many years ago there appeared a pamphlet criticising “the comma
trick”, by which Christadelphians make the text in Luke 23:43 read, “Verily I
say unto thee today, Thou shalt ...”, instead of punctuating it as in the
Authorised Version, which implies the promise of an immediate reception of the
penitent robber into paradise.
It impresses our critics more and
places us on surer ground, if instead we can harmonise such passages in the
light of Scripture as a whole. The Scriptural use of the word “Today”, for
example, in connection with Psalm 95:7 and Hebrews 3:15 and 4:7 is worthy of a
separate study in itself (see also Elpis Israel , page 61, 1942
edition). However, the claim that the original text has been wrongly
interpreted or manipulated by copyists is not always entirely without
foundation.
How Many Witnesses?
Perhaps the
classic example is 1 John 5:7–8 , which in the Authorised Version reads as
follows:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear
witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three
agree in one.”
In view of the fact that in John 1:1 it is declared that
“the Word was God” prior to its manifestation in flesh and that according to
John
Nevertheless we are on perfectly
safe ground in declaring that the whole passage, from “in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Spirit” to “that bear witness in earth”, is indeed an
interpolation, deliberately added by someone devoted to the Trinitarian dogma.
The testimony comes from within the Catholic Church itself.
Peter de Rosa, a former Jesuit priest,
is typical of several modern writers with a profound knowledge of the affairs
of the Vatican and the papacy who, while remaining devoted to the Catholic
faith, have not shrunk from criticising events of the past, notably the deeds
of former popes, in an attempt to reform and help preserve their church from
further error as it passes through its current critical stage. There have been
many others who have lapsed from the faith as a result of their researches and
their criticisms have been naturally far less sympathetic.
A Tangle over the Bible!
In his Vicars of Christ , de Rosa has a section
entitled “Bible Truth for Catholics”, in which he states that “even before Pius
X the Catholic Church had got itself into a tangle over the Bible, in
particular in a passage in the First Epistle of St. John ( 5:7 ), known as the
Johannine Comma”. 3 (This verse embraces verse 8 also in our
version.) “In 1897 the Holy Office took it upon itself to decide that this was
genuine Scripture. It forbade Catholic scholars to say otherwise. This was
first in a long line of official errors”.
De Rosa’s own testimony is that the
reference to the witnesses in heaven does not figure in a single early Greek
manuscript. It was added to the Latin manuscripts, probably first in
For thirty years from 1897 Catholic
scholars were required to ignore the evidence and follow the edict of the Holy
Office (formerly the Inquisition) in blind obedience and, says de Rosa, “from
this time on, Bible scholarship was a hazardous occupation”. After 1927,
however, the Holy Office decided that Catholics were entitled to “incline
against the genuineness of the Comma, provided they profess themselves ready
to stand by the judgement of the church (italics ours) to which Jesus
Christ entrusted the office not only of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures but
also of faithfully guarding them”.
How grateful we should be for the
privilege of having an open Bible set before us and how careful to preserve
that which has been committed to our trust, as humble hearers and doers of the
Word!
Alfred
Nicholls
[4] THE CHRISTADELPHIAN
( He is not ashamed to call them
brethren — Heb.
November, 1946
In the Name
In his last commission to his
disciples Jesus commanded them to go unto all nations preaching the gospel, and
baptizing those who believed “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.
As this stands in the A.V. there is ambiguity, for the phrase “in the name”
might be understood as meaning “with the authority of” or “on behalf of”. “In”,
however, is really “into”, which permits of only one interpretation.
The apostles obeyed Christ’s commandment, and the message
was preached in
In Paul’s epistles there are still other forms of words, but
obviously with the same meaning. “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death” (
To be baptized “into Jesus Christ” or “into Christ” is the
same as baptism “into the name of the Lord Jesus” or “of the Lord”, or “of
Jesus Christ”; and all these signify the same thing as baptism “into the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.
Here it should be noticed that baptism is into a “name”
whether that name be described by one or other of the phrases quoted. It is one
name, not three; and baptism “into the name” is equivalent to baptism “into
Christ”. What then is the Scriptural import of the “name”?
When Peter had healed a man lame from birth, he was asked,
“By what power, or by what name , have ye done this?” He answered: “By
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from
the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the
stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the
corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name
under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” ( Acts
A “name” is that by which a person is known. In human
relationships it may only distinguish one person from another for record
purposes, as on payrolls or membership lists. Some men, however, acquire a
“name” other than their Christian name and surname. It may be a “name” as a
successful general, a great painter, a clever writer, or for eminence in any
walk of life. A man may earn a “name” for roguery or baseness. In this sense
men have a name because of what they have done.
The “name of the Lord” combines both senses. God gave
Himself a name at the bush, not only to distinguish himself as the God of
Abraham from any of the gods that Pharaoh worshipped, but also to indicate His
purpose. “I will be what I will be” is His declared intention, and the memorial
form of this, self-given by God, is Yahweh, “He-who-shall-be”. This name at
once marks Yahweh out as the Holy One of Israel and also declares that He will
do something which is a “becoming” in some way of Himself; in other words, that
God would manifest Himself in human history for men’s salvation.
This manifestation—God manifest in flesh—in its initial
sense occurred nineteen and a half centuries ago when the babe was born in
To introduce “the Trinity” of pagan philosophy, incorporated
in the Creeds of a Christendom that had strayed far from the teaching of the
apostles, is to bring in ideas extraneous to the thought of Jesus. The
parallels to which attention has been drawn point to the right meaning and
connect the saying with the testimony concerning the manifestation of God in
human life revealed in earlier times in promises and prophecies recorded in the
Old Testament.
“Baptism into the name” relates to that purpose, those who
so render “obedience of faith” and makes them heirs, if they continue
faithfully in well doing, of the further development of the name in “the
manifestation of the sons of God” in the day when God brings again the
first-begotten into the world ( Heb. 1: 6 —margin; Rom. 8: 19 ). Then will the
work of the centuries during which God has been “taking out of the Gentiles a
people for his name” ( Acts 15: 14 ) be completed, in constituents of the name
becoming manifestations of God in spirit-nature, their bodies being changed and
fashioned like unto the body of the glory of Christ, according to the
Godendowed spirit energy whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself.
THE BAPTISMAL “FORMULA”
Dear Brother Editor,
It has come to my notice that many
ecclesias baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit ( Matt. 28:19 ) whilst others baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus (
Acts
If we take a Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance and look up the word “Name” starting at Acts 2:21 through to
Revelation 22:4 , we are nowhere told to do anything in the Name of the Father
or in the Name of the Holy Spirit, but discover that all things were done in
the Name of the Lord Jesus. Paul tells us in Colossians 3:17 to do all things
in the Name of Jesus. Does that mean that the Name of Jesus ought to be used in
baptism, especially as Peter in Acts 2:38 exhorts people to repent and be
baptized everyone in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins? Romans
10:9–10 seems to suggest that the Name of Jesus should be confessed with the
mouth. This is borne out by the example of Peter in Acts 3:6 , who not having
silver and gold to offer to the impotent man offered something far more
desirable, for Peter said “Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give
I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” Peter
emphasises the power of the name in Acts 4:10–12 , and Paul reminds us that he
has been given a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus
every knee shall bow ( Phil. 2:9 ).
It is something of a puzzle that
people are baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and yet would not dream of working, singing or praying in the Name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which suggests a possible
inconsistency. The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 6:3 that baptism into Jesus
Christ is a baptism into his death . We are buried with him , who
was cut off from the land of the living. We are not buried with the Father or
with the Holy Spirit. The burial is in fact indicative of the removal of those
things which God cannot abide and are in conflict with His Holy Spirit, for he
bore our sins in his body on the tree. It is Jesus that has tasted death for
every man; it seems obvious therefore that only in His Name can we be baptized.
A comparison of parallel accounts in
Luke 24:47 with that of Matthew 28:19 could be helpful, bearing in mind that
Luke was noted for his accuracy and attention to detail—very necessary
qualities in a doctor—and his record seems to restore the correct wording for
Matthew 28:19 : “ That repentance and the remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem ”.
Sincerely your brother
Ronald
Gibbs
This question arises from time to
time and has been discussed at some length in The Christadelphian , most
recently in two articles by Brother L. G. Sargent (1963, pp. 152 and 202). In
this whole discussion there are several very important points to notice. They
are: (1) there is no textual or historical evidence that the words of the
Lord’s commands in Matthew 28:19 are not correctly represented; (2) there are
several places in Scripture where God, Christ and the Spirit are linked
together, e.g. 1 Cor. 12:3 ; 2 Cor. 13:14 ; 1 Cor. 6:11 ; Titus 3:4–7 , the
last two passages directly concerning baptism; (3) The Ecclesial Guide
(page 9) sets out the procedure followed by most ecclesias, and makes the
following points: “Nothing depends upon a set form of words. It is the
believer’s submission to the commandment of God that is counted to him for
righteousness and union with Christ. Still, it is more seemly that a Scriptural
and appropriate description should accompany the act performed … As regards the
form of words, it is better to say, ‘baptized into the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’, than simply ‘baptized into the Lord
Jesus’, for this reason: the first form of words keeps the truth concerning
Christ in the foreground—that he is the manifestation of the Father by the Holy
Spirit and that what he did, he did not of himself as a man; whereas the latter
leaves the way open for the idea to grow up that Jesus came in his own name
(which he expressly says he did not), and not in his Father’s name (which he
expressly says he did).”— Editor
THE LORD’S COMMAND TO BAPTIZE
2—THE DOCTRINE
HAD there been no uneasiness about the doctrinal teaching of
Matt. 28 : 19 it is most unlikely that any Christadelphian would have
questioned the text. It is greatly to be regretted that textual scholarship
should be made to serve the ends of doctrine rather than belief submitting to
the Word of God.
Yet even on doctrinal grounds the
absence of Matt. 28 : 19 would leave a puzzling gap. The only other passage in
the Synoptic Gospels which is anything like a direct command from the Lord to
baptize is Mark 16 : 15–16 ; yet even the stoutest defender of the integrity of
the last twelve verses of Mark must admit that the evidence against them is
stronger than anything that can be adduced against the verse in Matthew. It is
not conclusive; as Burgon showed, there is a strong case on the other side: but
it exists. If Matt. 28 : 19 were to be rejected on the kind of evidence which
has been advanced, it would be inconsistent indeed to retain the ending of
Mark. If both these passages were to be eliminated, then there would be no
command to baptize in the first three gospels, and we should come on to the
third chapter of John before finding a direct injunction on this vital subject.
If critical attitudes to the Fourth Gospel are to be taken account of, then we
should at least find ourselves in much argument to defend baptism as a command
of Jesus at all. The critics who question Matt. 28 : 19 do in fact deny the
historicity of John 3 . Such could be the logical chain of consequences of one
ill-judged venture into criticism to serve an ulterior motive.
The difficulty, of course, comes in
the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”,
commonly referred to as the “Trinitarian formula”. Yet this is not unique: the
three are named together several times in the New Testament, and (as will be
shown later) at least twice in direct connexion with baptism. The existence of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit is inwrought into the New Testament. We cannot deny
that there are three, or that they are intimately related. We need not turn to
paganism to find a “threeness”. What we can and must deny on scriptural ground
is that they are three co-equal and co-eternal persons. It is this belief which
constitutes the Doctrine of the Trinity, and has corrupted and distorted the
theology of the Church. This we must repudiate decisively. Our concern is not
whether there are three, but what is their nature and what is the relationship
between them. Here we must affirm with Paul that there is “one God, the Father,
of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things, and we through him”; and “one Spirit, even as also ye were
called in one hope of your calling”. 1 Yet the Son is born at a
point in history, and the Spirit is defined as “the power of the Highest” 2
rather than a distinct Person. The Spirit, as the words used for it indicate,
is indeed the “outbreathing” of God. This character it retains, even though
(like the “Word”) it can sometimes be spoken of as though it were in some way
independent and acting on its own.
The most familiar passage which
names the three together is 2 Cor. 13 : 13 : “The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion (or fellowship) of the Holy
Spirit be with you all.” The Corinthian ecclesia existed, as do all the
churches of God, through the grace that came through the Lord Jesus Christ, emanating
from the love of the Father. They had come into a fellowship through the
activity of the Holy Spirit—however we interpret that activity, whether it be
through the giving of the Word, providential control, the forgiveness of sins
in baptism, or in any other way. It is through the Spirit that God performs His
acts. Paul’s prayer is that the Corinthians may continue to receive that grace
and love, and abide in that fellowship.
A similar linking together of the
three is found in 1 Cor. 12 : 4 : “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the
same spirit, And there are diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord. And
there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in
all.” 3
John, in the passage quoted in the
previous article, says “and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with
his Son, Jesus Christ”; 1 and while the Holy Spirit is not directly
mentioned, the action of the Spirit in Christ and through the apostles is
implied as the basis of the fellowship.
The two passages which directly
concern baptism are 1 Cor. 6 : 11 and Titus 3 : 4–7 . The first of these reads
in the A.V.: “But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” James Moffatt gives
the force of the verbs by rendering them in the past tense and making the first
reflexive—an action done to oneself: “You washed yourselves clean, you were
consecrated, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the
Spirit of our God.” The subject of the statement is a past act accomplished
once for all, and it can therefore only refer to baptism. The washing was their
own deed: the consecration and justification were acts done to them as with
sins forgiven, and brought into covenant with God, they rose from the waters.
But cleansing, sanctification, justification, were accomplished in the name of
Christ, which now embraced them, and in the Spirit of God through whose action
they were placed within the way of salvation. The Spirit is indeed identified
with God, as it must be; it is inseparable from Him. God is spirit, and spirit
is God; and the Spirit is God in action. Yet none the less three are mentioned
as all involved in that which happens in baptism in the order—Christ, Spirit,
God. Forgiveness, rebirth, adoption as sons consecrated to Him, are God’s acts
towards believing and obedient men, accomplished in His Son and through His
Holy Spirit. Baptism is an act performed in “calling upon the name of the
Lord”; the person baptized in faith is brought within the Name and so within
the compass of the redeeming work of God through His Spirit.
The passage in Titus is one of a
number in the Pastoral Epistles which the Apostle emphasizes as “faithful
sayings”: 1
“But after that the kindness and
love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; which he shed on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
This names (1) “God our Saviour”,
(2) the Holy Spirit, and (3) “Jesus Christ our Saviour”. Of God it is said
“According to his mercy he saved us”—a past act; his salvation is on His part
an accomplished fact, whatever they do with it. His kindness and love to man
have been made manifest. The saving is “through the washing 1
of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”. It is a washing of rebirth and
a renewal through or by means of the Holy Spirit. If verse 6 seems to be an
allusion to Pentecost, it obviously cannot mean that all are recipients of a
Pentecostal outpouring at baptism, for that would be accompanied by visible
signs. Nor did the Holy Spirit come on that day upon those who were baptized as
it had come upon the apostles. It was truly said to them “Ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit”, but the “gift” was that of the Holy Spirit’s
redeeming action. No mention is made of those three thousand converts receiving
“spirit gifts” or such visible outpouring as had endowed the apostles with
their powers, or indeed in any obvious sense “receiving the spirit” at all.
In what way can it be said, then,
that there is an “outpouring” for us now? First it is to be noted that the
outpouring is for us “through Jesus Christ”. Whether or not he bestows Spirit
gifts, he is the channel through whom the Spirit is active. Receiving the
Spirit without measure and accomplishing the work of the Spirit in his death
and resurrection, and being presented to us as the object of our faith, he is
the Spirit to us. In him the Spirit works for our salvation; and through the
grace that is in him we are justified and made heirs in the hope of eternal
life. Thus Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all actively involved in our
salvation, which has its beginning in our new birth through baptism.
So far, then, from Matt. 28 : 19 being unique in the New Testament in
its mention of the threefold Name, the redemptive activity of God through the
Holy Spirit and in His Son is essential to Paul’s doctrine of baptism. Whether
or not he has the threefold Name in Matthew directly in mind—as indeed he
may—Paul’s teaching on baptism forms an exposition of the words spoken by the
Lord. That teaching, so far as it concerns the threefold Name, can hardly be
better expressed than in the ascription of glory which concludes one of our
hymns—a hymn which surely could only have been written by a Christadelphian
steeped in Scripture and in the writings of Dr. Thomas:
Glory to the Father be
By the Son’s supremacy
In the Spirit’s mystery;
Hallelujah! Yea, Amen.
L.
G. Sargent.
[1]. Vol. 11: The Christadelphian : Volume 11. 2001,
c1874. The Christadelphian, volume 11. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System
(Vol. 11, Page 234-235).
1 W. E. Allen , International Critical Commentary .
2 “Many modern critics, indeed, have denied the
institution of the Sacrament (of baptism) by Christ,
together with the historicity of Matt. 28 : 19 , and even in a few cases the
authenticity of the text.”—
1 To be distinguished from W. J. Conybeare (1815–1857), collaborator with Dean Howson in The Life and Epistles of St. Paul .
2 The Bible and Modern Scholarship (1948), page 37; see also pages 18, 21.
2 New Schaff-Hertzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge (1908), article “Baptism”.
4 Didachē , 7:1 ; 9:5 . This document possibly dates from the first half of the second century, and some have even attributed it to the first century.
[2]. Vol. 100: The Christadelphian : Volume 100. 2001,
c1963. The Christadelphian, volume 100. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System
(Vol. 100, Page 152-154).
[3]. Vol. 99: The Christadelphian : Volume 99. 2001,
c1962. The Christadelphian, volume 99. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System
(Vol. 99, Page 179).
3 It is not certain why this particular passage was so described, but the most probable explanation is this: since the comma was unknown in Greek punctuation, where it appears in a Latin manuscript it is in some sense itself an interpolation. So the whole disputed passage here is ironically described as a very significant ‘comma’! This is a very different kind of ‘comma’, however, from the one we discussed in connection with Luke 23:43 .
[4]. Vol. 127: The Christadelphian : Volume 127. 2001,
c1990. The Christadelphian, volume 127. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System
(Vol. 127, Page 293).
[5]. Vol. 83: The Christadelphian : Volume 83. 2001,
c1946. The Christadelphian, volume 83. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System
(Vol. 83, Page 170).
[6]. Vol. 121: The Christadelphian : Volume 121. 2001,
c1984. The Christadelphian, volume 121. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System
(Vol. 121, Page 150).
1 1 John 1 : 3 .
1 According to J. A. Robinson in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians , “washing” is a more correct rendering than “laver” (R.V. margin) in Eph. 5 : 26 and Titus 3 : 5 .