Matthew 28:19 In Original Gospel of Matthew: Trinitarian Formula or Not?

[Christian3]

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/home/...f-matthew.html

How do we know that Matthew 28:19 is original?

Thanks.

[tabibito]

The book of Acts and Paul’s epistles repeatedly show the original baptismal formula was to baptize into only Jesus’ name. See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15.

Flatly, we don't. However,

επι - epi - upon: Acts 2:38,
εις - heis - into: Acts 8:16, 19:5, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 1:13, 15, Matt 28:19
εν - en - in: Acts 10:48
Acts 10:43 - no direct reference to baptism

1/ εις is frequently used where εν would normally be expected (BDAG).
2/ In Matt 28:19, baptise is in the active voice, the other occurrences are passives.

Thus, the person in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit baptises; the person getting baptised gets baptised into Christ. The claim then, that "Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus," stands unsubstantiated.

"the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1"
The problem with the argument here? Not that 7:1 gives any clear statement of trinity, but the Didache dates to circa AD 96. The Didache does however, give a clear indication here and there of familiarity with the gospels.

Even so, Matthew 28:19 still needs to be considered with caution. "It may be that this formula, [i.e., the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19] so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community." may well be true.

[ReformedApologist]

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/home/...f-matthew.html

How do we know that Matthew 28:19 is original?

Thanks.

I see this often used by Oneness Pentecostals who try and pit this text against others. To me it makes no difference, the author is arguing from silence. Yes we do baptize in the name Christ but this does not deny the Father or the Holy Spirit are part of it. To me its just petty nitpicking. Secondly it was quoted by Irenaeus in his book "Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.17.1", and Tertullian in On Prescription Against Heretics ch.20. Many claim that Nicaea invented the Trinity as well but there is no evidence for that except the wild claims you find in the Davinci Code.

[Same Hakeem]

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/home/...f-matthew.html

How do we know that Matthew 28:19 is original?

Thanks.

Even if Matthew 28:19 formula is original, it does not prove trinity in any way because Jesus prayed to the Father for the disciples in John 17:21 "that may be one in us" but the disciples were not GODS because they were one with the Father and Jesus.

[Unitarian101]

Even if Matthew 28:19 formula is original, it does not prove trinity in any way because Jesus prayed to the Father for the disciples in John 17:21 "that may be one in us" but the disciples were not GODS because they were one with the Father and Jesus.

That's correct. Here is some food for thought:

Matthew 28:19 Is Genuine
We were asked to have a look at an online version of a 1961 pamphlet titled "A Collection of the Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19," by one A. Ploughman. The point of this little pamphlet was apparently to take an argument out of the traditional Trinitarian arsenal by suggesting that this verse was altered, and originally referred to baptizing in the name of Jesus (as found in other parts of the NT).

I would begin by noting that our own study of the Trinity makes absolutely no use of Matthew 28:19. This verse is not particularly useful for Trinitarian defense as it theoretically could support any view -- modalism, even tritheism, could be permitted from this verse, for it only lists the members of the Triune Godhead with absolutely no explanation as to their exact relationship.

Verse 18 would indicate that the Father is in a functionally superior relationship to the Son, but that says nothing about an ontological relationship; though one may justly argue that it is very unlikely (but not impossible) that all three would be named together if there were not an ontological equality, lest God's glory somehow be compromised.

So in a real sense, arguments about the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 don't serve much of a purpose in this context. However, we have been asked to look at these arguments and offer comment, so we will do so.

J P Holding

That being said, I am inclined to think that the so-called "Triune formula" in it is not genuine but an interpolation.

[Unitarian101]

I see this often used by Oneness Pentecostals who try and pit this text against others. To me it makes no difference, the author is arguing from silence. Yes we do baptize in the name Christ but this does not deny the Father or the Holy Spirit are part of it. To me its just petty nitpicking. Secondly it was quoted by Irenaeus in his book "Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.17.1", and Tertullian in On Prescription Against Heretics ch.20. Many claim that Nicaea invented the Trinity as well but there is no evidence for that except the wild claims you find in the Davinci Code.

So who in your opinion "invented" it since it is not articulated in the GNT ? Had Nicea been it's originator, it could at least boast a 1600 year tradition and the sanction of a cadre of ancient bishops calling themselves "Christians.".

[Unitarian101]

The book of Acts and Paul’s epistles repeatedly show the original baptismal formula was to baptize into only Jesus’ name. See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15.

Flatly, we don't. However,

επι - epi - upon: Acts 2:38,
εις - heis - into: Acts 8:16, 19:5, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 1:13, 15, Matt 28:19
εν - en - in: Acts 10:48
Acts 10:43 - no direct reference to baptism

1/ εις is frequently used where εν would normally be expected (BDAG).
2/ In Matt 28:19, baptise is in the active voice, the other occurrences are passives.

Thus, the person in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit baptises; the person getting baptised gets baptised into Christ. The claim then, that "Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus," stands unsubstantiated.

"the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1"
The problem with the argument here? Not that 7:1 gives any clear statement of trinity, but the Didache dates to circa AD 96. The Didache does however, give a clear indication here and there of familiarity with the gospels.

Even so, Matthew 28:19 still needs to be considered with caution. "It may be that this formula, [i.e., the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19] so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community." may well be true.

A. D. Howell-Smith, The Didache (Jesus Not a Myth, p. 120):

The simple Christology of Acts confronts us again in the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, a composite work, of which the first six chapters seem to be a Christian redaction of a Jewish document entitled The Two Ways, while the rest is the work of several Christian writers, the earliest belonging to the first century and the latest perhaps to the fourth. The Jesus mentioned in this book's account of the celebration of the Eucharist is just the "Servant" (Παις) of God, who has made known the "holy vine" of God's "Servant" David; nothing is said of the bread and wine being the body and blood of Jesus. The formula of baptism in the name of the Trinity, which is given in Chap. VII, must come from a later hand, though possibly earlier than Justin Martyr, who is familiar with it.