The Great Commission text
The "Great Commission" text found in Matthew 28:19 reads as follows:
Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit."
The view of Catholic scholars on this text is the following:
"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 Catholic Encyclopedia, II, p. 263
"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession
of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries
in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of
origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of
Rome." --Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (prior to becoming
the reigning Pope Benedict XVI).
The view of Christian scholars is the following (selected from
A
Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19):
"The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula
in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any
other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars
as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that
the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that
the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula
was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's
form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in
the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the
Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew),
this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus.
It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived
from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal
usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic)
Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..." --Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible 1963, p. 1015
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page
152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library
in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of
Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of
the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words
to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With
one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples
of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover
I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
The disciples only baptized in the name of Jesus
It is extremely unlikely that if Jesus had specifically commanded his
apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit" that the apostles would later disobey his direct command
and baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, alone. Thus, the reason
why the disciples did not carry out this command was not because they
were unfaithful to the command of Jesus, rather, it was because Jesus
never said these words in the first place. They were added by the Church
later on. Another famous trinitarian verse where this was done is in
the KJV of 1 John 5:7 (See: Is
1 John 5:7 Trinitarian?).
Here are the clear instances in the Book of Acts of baptizing in the name of Jesus alone.
- Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..."
- Acts 8:16: "...they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
- Acts 10:48: "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ..."
- Acts 19:5: "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
- Acts 22:16: "...Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
The apostle Paul is the only writer in the New Testament to give us the term 'baptized into Christ' (or 'baptized into his death' or baptized into one body').
- Romans 6:3-7: "...were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death..."
- 1 Corinthians 12:12-13: "...we were all baptized into one body..."
- Galatians 3:26-28: "...For as many of you as were baptized into Christ..."
- Colossians 2:11-13: "...buried with Him in baptism..."
The Context of Matthew 28:19
When the text is read in context ("A text without a context is
a pretext"), the verse in question reads well when the shorter
version is applied. Thus,
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to *me*.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them *in
my name*, teaching them to observe all that *I* have
commanded you. And behold, *I* am with you always, to the end
of the age." Matthew 28:18-20
As to the meaning of the text, baptizing in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit also diminishes the all sufficiency of Christ's
atonement. Robert Roberts makes 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
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 of the world.
We experience forgiveness of sins through repentance and an outward
manifestation of that repentance by baptism ("Repent and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of
your sins" Acts 2:38).
The Gospel of Luke argues against the triune wording. In the parallel
account in Luke it reads, "and that repentance and forgiveness
of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all
nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47).
In the Name
However, even if we were to accept this verse as a legitimate part
of Scripture, would it teach three Beings? The apostles would have understood
that Christ was not emphasizing a particular formula, but rather the
different elements of our salvation which must be accepted by every
believer. A name in the Bible, of course, indicates authority and character.
They understood that what He meant was that every new believer should
accept the authority, character and work of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit in his life. The Father gave His Son and His life to mankind.
We must accept the gifts of His love in the gift of His Son, and His
life and power in His Holy Spirit. If we fail to receive one or the
other, then our salvation would not be complete. Is there any teaching
here that the Holy Spirit is a third Being separate from Father and
Son? No. Only if we read something into the Scriptures which they do
not say.
Notice also that the verse says we are to baptize "in the name of.
. ." Why is it singular if there are supposed to be three persons? Again,
the word name in the Bible indicates authority and character.
The authority of Jesus (or "in the name of Jesus" was used by the disciples to perform miracles.
- Acts 3:16: "...In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!"
- Acts 16:18: "...I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."
Theologians of the Past
Martin Luther in his Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church describes disagreements over the wording of the baptism as "pedantry" and argues for acceptance of baptisms in the name of Jesus if carried out with proper intent. See see section 3.14 Archived June 18, 2009, at the Wayback Machine which reads in part, "Baptism truly saves in whatever way it is administered, as long as it is not administered in the name of man but in the name of God."
Others mentioned in Wikipedia (see Baptism in the name of Jesus):
- St. John Chrysostom argues for a literal interpretation of the Luke's records of baptisms in the name of Jesus, as accounted in Acts. [John Chrysostom. Homily on Acts X.44, 46 XXIV. Chrysostom, in Instructions to the Catechumens, makes several references to Acts 2:38, but does not reference Matt 28:19 a single instance. Additionally, in his Homily on Matthew, Ch XXVIII, he repeatedly quotes Matt 28:19 in what F.C. Conybeare called the "shorter Eusebian form", suggesting the potential that Chrysostom and Eusebius of Caesarea referenced a common, earlier source for the Gospel of Matthew.]
- St. Basil states that, "the naming of Christ is the confession of the whole." [Basil. On the Holy Spirit, Book I, Ch 3]
- St. Ambrose, mentor to Augustine, argued for the validity of baptisms "in the name of Jesus." [Ambrose. On the Holy Spirit, Book I, Ch 3]
- St. Augustine states that "those baptized into other names need to be rebaptized into Christ." Elsewhere, he states knowledge of those who had been baptized into the name of Christ alone [outside the apostolic era]. and likewise argues for a literal interpretation of Acts 2:38 "in the name of Jesus". [Augustine. To Petitianus, Ch 44, sect 104; On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Chs 28, 52]
- St. Thomas Aquinas (while arguing for Trinitarian baptism), states that the apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.) baptized in the name of Christ alone by "special dispensation." (Whereas many modern scholars, by contrast, interpret the saying "in the name of Jesus Christ" figuratively instead of literally in an attempt to reconcile the two conflicting passages [Acts 2:38 & Matt 28:19]). [Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, "On Baptism".]
- The Baptist Standard Confession of 1660 declares baptisms in the name of "Jesus Christ" to be valid.
EGW (Ellen G. White) on Matthew 28:19
The history of the change to Matthew 28:19 was apparently not known to EGW or the Adventist pioneers. As least, nothing is written by her or the pioneers that gives any hint of them knowing anything about this change. EGW routinely quoted and commented on Matthew 28:19 in her writings using the KJV wording. One important quote is found below. Please note that the bracketed words are from EGW herself.
- Ellen White, HM, July 1, 1897 par. 16: Before he left them, Christ gave his followers a positive promise that after his ascension he would send them the Holy Spirit. “Go ye therefore,” he said, “and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father [a personal God,] and of the Son [a personal Prince and Saviour], and of the Holy Ghost [sent from heaven to represent Christ]: 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.”
- Read commentary on this here: Does Ellen White Explain Matthew 28:19 as a Trinity?
Except for her use of Matthew 28:19, we do not find EGW giving us any other Biblical support for a trinitarian view. (She never used 1 John 5:7 which also has trinitarian wording. See Is 1 John 5:7 Trinitarian?) You will note that whenever you read the seemingly trinitarian wording "the three great (powers/dignitaries/authorities)" in her writings it is almost always in the context of the Matthew 28:19 baptismal formula. If you take away her quotes specific to the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, you will find that Adventist trinitarians have practically nothing else to hang on EGW to support the trinity.
- Ellen White, AA 28.2: The disciples were to carry their work forward in Christ's name. Their every word and act was to fasten attention on His name, as possessing that vital power by which sinners may be saved. Their faith was to center in Him who is the source of mercy and power. In His name they were to present their petitions to the Father, and they would receive answer. They were to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christ's name was to be their watchword, their badge of distinction, their bond of union, the authority for their course of action, and the source of their success. Nothing was to be recognized in His kingdom that did not bear His name and superscription.
- Note that all her wording in AA 28.2 is consistently centered on Christ's name, all except for the reference to Matthew 28:19 which uses the trinitarian wording. Had she known of the change and used the original (correct) wording, her paragraph would have been completely consistent with stating that everything the disciples did was in the name of Jesus, even baptism.
The question of how could a prophet like EGW not receive light on this change is legitimate if this were the only text in question. The fact is, EGW was not given light on at least two other texts, 1 John 5:7 (see Is 1 John 5:7 Trinitarian?) and Colossians 2:14.
Colossians 2:14 speaks of the "handwriting of ordinances" in the KJV, but is now understood and translated as the "record of debt" as is found in the ESV and other modern translations. The Greek word for "handwriting" is cheirographon which we now understand to mean the "record of debt." EGW and the Adventist pioneers (e.g. Uriah Smith) did not know this and so went with the KJV translation and the interpretation that we see in their writings. In the Adventist magazine, Ministry, this discrepancy was addressed in their November, 1955 issue (see Colossians 2:14), and an attempt is made to reconcile the difference. So that although EGW was given much light with regard to the Scriptures, apparently she was not given full light. By this is meant: We cannot rely on EGW having full, complete and correct understanding of every Bible text she used.
See also:
