Mathew 28:19 not orginal ?

[nightwatchman]

Some time ago, I came across a web site titled A Closer Look at Matthew 28:19, claiming that the reading in Matthew 28:19 was probably not original. The claims were quite interesting, but very difficult to verify as most of the sources given are not very accessible to the average person. However, I recently purchased Word Biblical Commentary on CD-ROM and was amazed at what it had to say about this passage, especially since it was written and published by Trinitarians. It is also one of the most respected commentary series which could still be called evangelical (that's with a very small "e") in print today. In fact, I recently examined three independent scholars' (D. A. Carson, Gorden Fee & David R. Bauer) recommendations for commentaries on every book in the new testament (I intend to have an article up on this soon) and Word Biblical Commentary received more recommendations than any other. This is what it says in its comment on Matthew 28:19:

The threefold name (at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf. Did. 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read "make disciples in my name" (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation (see H. B. Green; cf. Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986) 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of the "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the early practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: "There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (tou kuriou Iesou; Acts 8:16; 19:5). . . . Schaberg's theory that the triadic formula goes back to the triad in Dan 7 (Ancient of Days, one like a son of man, and angels) remains an improbable speculation.1



William Arnold

[BroRutledge]

Matt 28:19

If the original meant to do it in the name of of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or to make deciples in the name it still ends up that we must do it all in the name of Jesus.

God bless
Bro Rutledge

[ddc101]

I have heard the same thing Bro.Nightwatchman.In fact I went to a ministers meeting once at the UPC campground here and the brother teaching had it up on the overhead that it was penciled in or probably written in by a scribe.There were other things too in the margins that scribes would add.Somehow it ended up in the text.I believe it is not in the Alexandranian text.Also to make this interesting..the alexandranian text has the account of the ethiopian eunich receiving the Holy Ghost.What people don't realize is that the KJV was compiled from majority texts.That is why it is most accurate.For some the fact that other texts have a few less words or more words would rock their faith in the bible.But I am so glad that Jesus chose to preserve his word.He proved it true to me when I received the Acts 2:38 experience.That was enough for me.sis.c

[nightwatchman]

This is the website where article is.......CLICK HERE (www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html)

[truemessianic]

I, too, was atught that Matthew 29.19 was not in the Bible the way it is now. Jesus told them according to what I was taught that He said, "...baptizing them in my name." This is the reality of the world trying to take the truth out. However, when we look closely at this, we see all they did was pronounce the truth of Oneness even in this re-translation.
Praise be unto Jesus Messiah, for His words are true and Amen!

[bill]

If you think about it, the argument of context proves Jesus said "in my Name".

Matthew 28:17
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth...therefore (because all power is given unto me) go baptise in my Name..."

It just makes sense and flows better with the text. And that is not to mention that when it was quoted in the second century, it was always quoted as "in my Name". Thirdly, we have the witness of the rest of the scriptures. Nowhere, and I do mean absoltely nowhere, is there any praise, honour or glory given to "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." If this were the proper name to baptise into, surely it would be mentioned in another place in the N.T.

Justin Martyr quoted the way he baptised in his apology in 125 AD, this is the way he said he baptised, "...in the Name of God the Father and Lord of all, and of his son Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost." So, even as late as 125 AD, the Name of Jesus was still being invoked. It is not until much later in church history, that we have any record of the titles of the trinity being invoked over the candidate, as a basis of belief and baptism into a tri-une god.

However, when witnessing to trinitarians, it is best to stick with scriptures. Even though it is highly possible that Matt 28:19 was originally written as "in my name", still God preserved the text itself from being corrupted. As Bro Rutledge noted, the text teaches the same thing. In fact, it even asserts the Biblical view, that JESUS is the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

[Adoniyah]

Nightwatchman:

I have heard that argument many times.

Actually, as brother Atkinson said, it still comes out "in the name of Jesus."

I am certainly not at the level of scholarship to be able to validate for myself whether or not the KJV contains the original terminology. There are not many scholars that are. We can only take the word of those that claim to have researched it, if we choose to, after confirming their own credentials.

However my concern is if we can invalidate Matt 28:19, we might just as well invalidate John 3:5 or Acts 2:38. It is important that we stand with the Word of God that has been handed down to us as we have it. God is capable of watching over his own Word. Since God is so capable of watching over his own Word, we have no need to question any portion of its authenticity.

If the devil can discredit the Word anywhere in our minds, soon he will discredit it somewhere else. Eventually, the Word becomes little more than a history book of tenuous authority.

[Cherokee]

I have found that when God Himself speaks to our hearts about things it clears up any preconceived ideas we may have. That is why the letter killeth but the Spirit maketh alive. I believe God is referring to the "quickening" or the piercing of the two edged sword. We must study that we may show ourselves approved unto God, a workmen who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Just recently the Lord dropped a thought into my heart completely different than what I have seen it as before. The thought was,"God cares how we look." As I thought about this the other thought came," Now you've heard people say,don't look at me like that, or don't look at me in that tone of voice." God impressed me that He cares how we look at things especially pertaining to Him and His opinion on any subject. Sometimes the way we look at someone can speak volumes more than we could ever say. So now I have to pray,"Lord let me see through your eyes and with humility that my very expression will not be out of context with what I am trying to do for God because our eyes mirror our thoughts so often. God's Word is alive and He uses it to guide us through and I myself prefer the KJV as do most of us though we all use other references in study. Love Ya' in Jesus!!! Cherokee

[Blest]

Adoniyah -

I, too, have been concerned about that very thing, invalidating any part of God's Word, where does it end. Especially when it comes to talking with trinitarians - for the reason you stated.

Cherokee - Good point about 'how we look'. So true, very profound!

Blest

[bishop1]

:bow:
I believe that Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47
go hand in hand and I always like to look at
this in its entire context;

Matthew 28:18/20;
{18} And JESUS came and spake unto them,
saying, All Power Is Given Unto Me In Heaven
And In Earth.
{19} Go Ye Therefore, and Teach All Nations,
Baptizing Them In The Name Of The Father,
And Of The Son, And Of The Holy Ghost;
{20} Teaching Them To Observe All Things
Whatsoever I Have Commandd You: And Lo,
I Am With Uou Alway, Even Unto The End
Of The World. A-men'.

:bow:

LUKE 24:45/49;
{45} Then opened he their understanding,
that they might underdtand the scriptures.
{46} And said unto them, Thus it is written,
and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to
rise from the dead on the third day:
{47}
And That Repentance And Remission Of Sins
Should Be Preached In His Name Among All
Nations, Beginning At Jerusalem.
{48} And ye are witnesses of these things.
{49} And, Behold, I send you the promise
of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the
city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with
power from on high.

The Understanding of The Godhead -
Comes By Revelation !

"then opened He their understanding"
:angel:

[Nathan]

One of the many reasons I dislike the KJV and can't completely agree with the literalist view ....

As for the Majority Text, they're not necessarily better than the Critical Text. The CT is comprised of older manuscripts, though age doesn't always ensure superiority. The MT and CT don't really disagree as much as KJV-onlyists would like to say they do, so it's not really a big deal.

[mfblume]

Nathan, you might want to check out the philosophy of the scholarly proponents of the critical texts. There is a bad spirit in it.

[Nathan]

The idea that men have somehow tampered with the manuscripts?