26

Scholars such as F. C. Conybeare1 have claimed that the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 was not original to the text of Matthew.

Matt 28:19 (NIV)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

In other words, was the phrase in the text "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" inserted at a later date (say, for example, by the First Nicean Council of AD 325)?

The correct reading of Matthew 28:19 appears to be in Luke 24:47:

Luke 24:47 (NIV)
47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Another question on this site had covered some questions relating to the final portion of the Gospel of Matthew in part, however my question is whether or not there is any historical and textual evidence that the particular text of Matthew 28:19 appeared later?

1F.C. Conybeare, "The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19," ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88.

Community
  • 1
Vince
  • 547
  • 2
  • 5
  • 10
  • 10
    Since something like the full text of Matthew 28:19 is found in the Didache (AD 50-70 at the earliest and generally early second century at the latest), is alluded to twice by Tertullian (d. 225) in On Baptism and Against Praxeas, and by several other church fathers before Nicea, Nicea (c. 325) couldn't have added it. – Frank Luke Jul 23 '14 at 18:34
  • Evidently, history can prove that nicea inserted "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." – Vince Jul 23 '14 at 18:40
  • @FrankLuke - didn't realize it was in the Didache. Is there an online English translation? I checked at CCEL.org and they only appear to have a Greek copy. – Matt Gutting Jul 23 '14 at 19:12
  • 2
    @Matt Gutting - check out this version of the Didache in English – Susan Jul 23 '14 at 19:38
  • 4
    Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water. – Frank Luke Jul 23 '14 at 20:17
  • 3
    ON BAPTISM For there has been imposed a law of baptizing, and its form prescribed: Go, [Jesus] says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Tertullian wrote that quote before his death c. 225. That's a century before Nicea. – Frank Luke Jul 23 '14 at 20:22
  • 2
    Frank Luke, could you give a precise reference for the Tertullian passage as well? – fdb Jul 24 '14 at 16:23
  • @fdb, I see the quote in the link Frank Luke includes in his comment, on page 31, in paragraph 13, about halfway down. – Matt Gutting Jul 24 '14 at 16:30
  • If anyone cares, the two-volume Loeb edition of the Apostolic Fathers are at Archive.org: here's Didache 7:1 (in vol. 1); and here's volume 2. FWIW! – Dɑvïd Jul 24 '14 at 21:05
  • 1
    @Frank Luke, "Tertullian wrote that quote before his death c. 225" Well, not so fast! The fact is manuscripts of church fathers' writings date later than when they supposedly wrote them, just like biblical manuscripts. So the manuscript of Tert's On Baptism is probably from the 4th or 5th century or later...so how do we know he really wrote that in 225? – david brainerd Jul 24 '14 at 23:40
  • 1
    In other words, if there was a grand conspiracy to change the gospel of Matthew, the same conspirators would have sured up their claims by changing Tertullian's quotation of it too. One has to believe in these conspiracies more or less on pure faith, since solid evidence won't be found. Circumstantial evidence at best. – david brainerd Jul 24 '14 at 23:41
  • @davidbrainerd, that is true. When I do the full answer, as Dan has requested (I planned on that as I edited the question to reopen it), I do intend to look at the dates of the manuscripts and not just the dates of the authors lives. And this conspiracy relies on the conspirators missing the writings of one of their contemporaries, Eusebius. – Frank Luke Jul 25 '14 at 01:32
  • Here is the link. MATTHEW 28-19 IS NOT SCRIPTURAL-ADDED ] http://www.lighthouselibrary.com/pdf/UNKNOWN%20AUTHORS/MATTHEW%2028-19%20IS%20NOT%20SCRIPTURAL-ADDED%20[Unknown%20Author].pdf – Vince Jul 26 '14 at 08:22
  • Having looked at Eusebius' Demonstratio Evangelica it is clear that Eusebius had access to at least one manuscript that said "in my name," as is most clearly demonstrated in Book 3, Chapter 7. See W.J. Ferrar's 1920 translation http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm And since no mss saying this any longer exists (so we are told), its obvious this particular variant was suppressed. That doesn't prove this variant was the original, but it does prove purposeful suppression of this variant! – david brainerd Jul 27 '14 at 00:27
  • Lot of quote mining in that pdf. Without full scholarly citations, it is impossible to track most of them down. They might go on to argue against the very quote that is lifted for inclusion. Can't tell without full references. For example, Cardinal Ratzinger said that when, where, in what context? Under what article was that citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia? Volume and page don't help without edition. – Frank Luke Jul 28 '14 at 00:42
  • 1
    Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, textual critic, and no trinitarian believes the long reading to be original. When a man who tries to undermine Christianity at every turn says the long reading is original, it should give those who argue against it pause. Eusebius had a tendency to abbreviate (as did many in antiquity). At other times, he quotes the long version (Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; Theophania 4.8). – Frank Luke Jul 28 '14 at 01:08
  • @Daи, it wasn't complete without the ANF. However, I was shocked at how little evidence there is against the long form. Eusebius is the only writer to use a short form. I have more references to the ANF, but adding them really junks the looks of the answer. – Frank Luke Aug 05 '14 at 17:59
  • "however my question is whether or not there is any historical and textual evidence that the particular text of Matthew 28:19 appeared later?" it seems that this has been answered. if it's not the answer you're seeking, then you're asking a loaded question and are seeking theological interpretations of the text and are not holding true to the intent of your question. please feel free to accept frank's answer. – swasheck Feb 17 '15 at 05:29

5 Answers5

31

The position in the question, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not original to Matthew 28:19 is held today by very few scholars. Those that do point to a quotation from the early church historian Eusebius. In Demonstratio 3.6, he replaces "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "my name."

This is then taken as a direct quote from the copy of Matthew he was using and the conclusion is then reached that the long version of Matthew 28:19 was added later. Also, it is concluded that the short reading was purposefully suppressed.

The originality of the short version of the verse fails in regards to both physical/manuscript evidence and logic.

Manuscript Evidence I: Matthew

Even though critics of trinitarians claim there is a mountain of historical evidence, there actually isn't. Another answer on this site lays out the manuscripts of Matthew. No manuscript of Matthew is known that has the short form of the verse. Even though the critical texts used by scholars lay out all kinds of textual variants throughout the NT, my copy of NA-27 does not list any variants on Matthew 28:19. Even though it lists out variants on 18 and 20, there are none for 19. When looking beyond Greek, all ancient translations have the long reading of Matthew (Latin, Syriac, etc).

One might point out the Hebrew translation of Matthew known as Shem Tob. While it does not have the long reading, it does not count for several reasons.

  1. It dates from the late 1300s (the medieval period, not antiquity). Far too late to be of any significant textual help.
  2. It doesn't even have the short reading of "baptizing in my name." Instead, Matt 28:19-20 reads "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." It mentions nothing of baptizing at all.

Bart Ehrman, a noted textual critic who is neither a Christian nor a trinitarian (in fact, he describes himself as an agnostic) agrees that the long form of the verse is original. The same blog reproducing Ehrman on this passage has a statement from another New Testament scholar who is also an authority on Eusebius. He notes:

  1. Eusebius' short form (Demonstratio 3.6, 7(bis); 9.11; Hist. Eccl. III.5.2; Psalms 65.6; 67.34; 76.20 (59.9 not the same reading); Isaiah 18.2; 34.16 (v.l.); Theophania 4.16; 5.17; 5.46; 5.49; Oratio 16.8) is the only textual evidence for the short reading
  2. Eusebius tends to abbreviate elsewhere
  3. Eusebius quotes the long form in Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; and Theophania 4.8

It is worth noting that Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, one of the places where he is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However, the statement is certainly not a quotation:

Eusebius writes is as:

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.

However, the full text is:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Eusebius is certainly refering to Phil 2:9f, but his writing of it is not a quotation.

Manuscript Evidence II: Quotation from the Church Fathers

Text critics don't just look at manuscripts of the text. They also examine quotations of passages in early writers. All quotations of Matthew 28:19 that include the "name" formula have the long version and not the short.

  • Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water
  • Tertullain On Baptism paragraph 13 Go, he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
  • Tertullian Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
  • Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII
  • Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus,
  • Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
  • and others

In total, searching only those Fathers prior to Nicea, I found 24 quotations of Matthew 28:19 using the full formula. There were no quotations amongst these writers with the short version. There were also quotations of the verse where they stopped prior to the list of names (i.e. "he commanded us to teach all nations"). I did not count those. In several of these, the full quote provides the basis for the argument supplied in the rest of the paragraph.

Triune Formulas Elsewhere in the New Testament

Even if Matthew 28:19 as we now know it is an addition, that does not eliminate the other trinitarian formulas present in the New Testament.

  • At the baptism of Jesus, all three persons are present (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32).
  • 2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you
  • 1 Peter 1:2-3a ...who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Logical Evidence

A third way in which the longer form can be seen to be original is to simply apply logic to the argument for the shorter as a conspiracy. The argument is that some faction of the Church (obviously representing the majority as this view won):

  1. Wanted the trinity formula in Matthew.
  2. Willfully altered manucsripts of Matthew 28:19.
  3. Sought out and destroyed all manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 containing the short reading.
  4. Then went through the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and altered their quotations of Matthew, destroying all other copies.

However, these conspirators, who had so little respect for Scripture that they altered it and were so careful as to destroy every copy of Matthew with the short reading, left intact the so-called original verse in Luke 24:47 (which is not a baptismal formula and is not a parallel to Matthew 28:19)* and all references to Jesus' name baptism in Acts and the Epistles! If this willful alteration is being done in Matthew, why stop there? Why not change Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; and 19:5? These five verses in Acts all refer to Jesus' name baptism or being baptized in Jesus' name (once, in the name of our Lord). None of them have textual variants of a trinitarian formula. Logically, if the conspirators made the change once, they would make the change in other places. At the time which this conspiracy is supposed to have taken place (Nicea, AD 325), the de-facto canon had been used and recognized since Iraneus. Matthew, Luke, and Acts were already recognized as Scripture.

*Matthew 28 takes place in Galillee while Luke's is in Jerusalem. Luke contains only statements of repentance and remission of sins while Matthew also speaks of teaching and baptism.

Another failing of this conspiracy is that they missed Eusebius, one of their contemporaries. Eusebius was a trinitarian and a powerful figure in the church. Yet, while they changed all quotations of Matthew 28:19 from the short to long in all the Ante-Nicean Church Fathers, they missed a few places in Eusebius but got his others. How did they manage to get all of the others yet miss some of one of their own?

If this were a conspiracy, it was a rather inept conspiracy as it left intact so many other verses in Scripture while managing to replace all versions of Matthew 28:19 with the new one.

Community
  • 1
Frank Luke
  • 22,300
  • 16
  • 84
  • 134
  • I'll keep my list of citations from the ANF in case it is requested. But posting it really just junks the answer. References available upon request. :) – Frank Luke Aug 05 '14 at 18:07
  • "When looking beyond Greek, all ancient translations have the long reading of Matthew (Latin, Syriac, etc)." Shem Tob's Hebrew does not. – david brainerd Aug 06 '14 at 04:50
  • 5
    I looked into Shem Tob, but it isn't ancient. It dates from the late 1300s and doesn't even have the short version ("baptizing them in my name"). It reads instead, "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever" (Matt 28:19-20). However, I should note that in the answer. – Frank Luke Aug 06 '14 at 13:13
  • 1
    No oneinthe bible was ever baptized in titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit... ALL were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ our LORD. – Vince Aug 06 '14 at 18:33
  • 1
    @Vince, if this were a conspiracy, why change Matthew but leave all those place in Acts alone? The physical and logical evidence is that Matthew wrote "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." If you understand that name means "authority" and that these three shared authority as the triune Godhead, then you see there is no discrepancy. – Frank Luke Aug 06 '14 at 18:41
  • No one was baptized in the titles but by the name of Jesus Christ our Lord throughout the book of Acts of the Apostles. Are they disobedient in the commandment of Jesus Christ "to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". – Vince Aug 07 '14 at 11:13
  • @Vince, that new question of yours would be straying off topic of "was the Triune formula original to Matthew?" You could ask it as a new question if you like. Short answer, though, no they weren't disobedient as "in the name of" means "in the authority of." – Frank Luke Aug 07 '14 at 13:25
  • @Frank Luke, "if this were a conspiracy, why change Matthew but leave all those place in Acts alone?" Tertullian accuses Marcion of having removed all the OT references in the Paulina but leaving a few in to make it look like he had not in fact done so. In other words, to give plausible deniability to the conspiracy. – david brainerd Aug 21 '14 at 04:14
  • @davidbrainerd, for plausible deniability to work, you'd want to change more than one reference. Instead, this "conspiracy" changes 1 and leaves 6. That's backwards. – Frank Luke Aug 21 '14 at 13:26
  • @All This question was decided at the Council of Nicea-for those who are insistent otherwise would bear in mind that those who opposed this Council were 'outside' of Christianity. Even Eusebius sided with the Council, though he had sympathy with Arius. – Tau Nov 03 '14 at 19:38
  • @FrankLuke - here's another one for you, if you're interested: George Howard, "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew", HTR 81/1 (1988): 117-120. – Dɑvïd Nov 03 '14 at 22:13
  • Interesting that both the verse before and the verse after have extant variants suggesting some editing going on. – Ruminator Oct 24 '18 at 21:50
  • This post is useless because it does not resolve the obvious conflict with Acts. IE: Papyrus 38 which has [Act 19:1-6 ESV] (1) And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. (2) And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." (3) And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism." – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 13:33
  • (4) And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." (5) On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 13:33
  • @Ruminator That only proves that they would have heard about the Holy Spirit's name at baptism, hence his question "in what were you then baptized?" (i.e. if not "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and their saying, "we have not so much as heard of the Holy Spirit." – Sola Gratia Apr 22 '19 at 18:36
  • "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus": [1Co 6:11 KJV] (11) And such were some of you: 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. – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 18:39
  • [Act 2:38 KJV] (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. They are separate things: One they do, the other results. – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 18:40
  • Jesus commended his spirit into the Father's hands before he died for safe keeping; the Father and the spirit did not die so they needed no burial. – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 18:42
2

I would say this text was probably not changed. This is not a generally accepted interpolation or alteration, nor a Western omission. The United Bible Societies, 4th Edition, 1993 (UBS4) accepts the text as is.

One argument for non-inclusion of the trinitarian baptismal formula is that the disciples never seem to have used it, and so apparently did not know of the command from Jesus. Another argument is that is that Eusebius of Caesaria does not mention it in his writings. Plausibly it was added to harmonise with the Didache.

What would militate against the text being an interpolation or alteration created after Acts of the Apostles began to circulate, is that Matthew 28:18-20 seem to preclude Acts 1:4-12. Either Jesus gave the disciples his Great Commission on a mountain in Galilee, after which they dispersed to preach the gospel, or Jesus gave them the commission in Jerusalem and then watched him ascend to heaven less than 2000 cubits (a Sabbath's journey) away. I would expect an interpolator to make a greater effort to harmonise the two texts.

Dick Harfield
  • 12,589
  • 5
  • 24
  • 60
1

It seems evident to me that it is not original.

The baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 is in direct contradiction with all of these passages:

[Act 2:38 NASB] (38) Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[Act 8:12 NASB] (12) But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

[Act 10:48 NASB] (48) And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

[Rom 6:3 NASB] (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

[1Co 1:13 NASB] (13) Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

[Gal 3:27 NASB] (27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

In addition, this 14th century manuscript, purporting to be a transmission of a Hebrew version of Matthew as described by early "fathers" does not include it:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF--home--Results&kn=&an=george+howard&tn=hebrew+gospel+of+matthew&isbn=

The veracity of the document is argued for in this video:

https://youtu.be/wmAY-vJGPhc

This is the relevant part of the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew and the translation:

Translation

Hebrew image

Ruminator
  • 1
  • 14
  • 74
  • 182
  • If someone changed Matthew 28:19 why didn't they change the others to match? It doesn't make sense to me that you would introduce such a sloppy inconsistency, unless it was present in the original texts, an inconsistency that developed from different authors writing in different communities with different baptismal traditions. – curiousdannii May 29 '20 at 01:45
  • 1
    1 John 5:8 was changed (added a whole new verse!) to promote a certain theology. If you research the 'multitude of errors' removed the last few decades from our bibles, you'll appreciate what a sloppy process it was. Now that we can compare multiple translations and verses so easily, changes and corruptions become readily apparent - that wasn't true decades ago except for the few 'learned' scholars'. – Steve May 29 '20 at 06:46
  • @curiousdannii Why/why not questions are inherently speculative. – Ruminator May 29 '20 at 09:07
  • 1
    @user48152 But changing 1 John 5:7 didn't introduce any direct inconsistency within the canon (it doesn't prove trinitarianism by any means, a modalist could happily assert it). Do you have other examples of clear additions/changes which you think do directly conflict with other texts? There's also abundant evidence that 1 John 5:7 was changed, but no manuscript evidence whatsoever that Matt 28:19 was. – curiousdannii May 29 '20 at 09:40
  • @curiousdannii I provided evidence in my answer. – Ruminator May 29 '20 at 09:44
  • A 14th century Hebrew translation is no evidence of a textual variant in the Greek. – curiousdannii May 29 '20 at 09:48
  • 1
    I'm not asserting Matt 28 was changed, simply pointing to yr comment about sloppy manipulation. It was sloppy and crude and, now days, very obvious. But that didn't stop them doing it. There are still some there, but very few by comparison. When the trinity is enforced by the sword, you can get away with it for a few centuries. – Steve May 29 '20 at 09:49
  • @user48152 I can't disagree with that, the 1 John 5:7 change was definitely sloppy! I guess my argument (to Ruminator) was more that if they could edit Matt 28:19 and so thoroughly hide that they had done it, so that now there was no evidence of any alternate text, then why not change even just one of the baptism formulas in Acts to match? – curiousdannii May 29 '20 at 10:23
-1

Despite the so called scholars on this subject, they miss the biggest question in regards to the Great Commission texts found in Sacred Scriptures. What sense does it make for Jesus in Luke and Mark say do ALL things in MY NAME - unless of course your doing this other thing (which is most important thing you can do!) then go ahead and do it in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the HOly Ghost. what sense would it make for Jesus to say ALL power has been given to ME..do ALL things in MY NAME. Then go off the next sentence and say do this in something other than HIS NAME?

Also, show me 1 place in Acts of the Apostles where they actually baptized this way. Not one spot will you find the Apostles baptizing this way. In fact you see them baptizing in the Name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) or in the Name of the Lord (who is Jesus).

Was Peter wrong when he stood up at Pentecost and declared that you were to Repent and be baptized in the Name of the Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins? He could of said anything to the people (Matthew 28:19 for instance). But He didn't..was he being disobedient to Jesus' teaching? Or did he understand fully what Jesus was saying?

Although I cannot prove that Matthew 28:19 was changed by the Catholic Church - I can prove that not one person in Scriptures were ever baptized that way. They were all baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins..as per Acts 2:38.

Acts238Believer
  • 39
  • 2
    I took the extraordinary measure of DV'ing your answer; not because I disagree with you(I do), but because you failed to "Show Your Work"(ie: proved through the text and other sources how you arrived at your conclusions). There are excellent forum sites where responses such as yours would be welcomed and appreciated, however we are about "Asking and answering questions which show the requisite research(identifying and accurately quoting sources) which your viewers could identify as supporting your conclusions. If you do this, I will remove my 'DV'; otherwise it stands. – Tau Nov 03 '14 at 20:21
  • You may be interested to read about what we mean by "showing your work". – Susan Nov 03 '14 at 21:07
  • Due to the nature of this site, references may be required in order to support your conclusions. – Paul Vargas Nov 03 '14 at 21:16
-1

Since John the Baptist was the only man "sent to baptize with water" (John 1:33) with a definition of "repentance" administered to people under the law who "believed Jesus was coming" (Acts 19:4) why would Jesus command Matthew 28:19 knowing that He came back in the glory of the Holy Ghost (John 7:39) since "He breathed on them and the disciples received the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22)?

Doesn't Matthew 28:19 contradict the definition for a water baptism when John said "...He sent me to baptize with water..." (John 1:33) with Paul giving the definition for John's baptism as one of "repentance" to people under the law who "believed Jesus was coming?"

Doesn't that make everyone who water baptize no matter in what name subject to the definition Paul gave in Acts 19:4 for any water baptism one of "repentance" to people who "believe Jesus is coming" even today?

If Matthew 28:19 "was of God no one could overthrow it" (Acts 5:39)!

Yet Matthew 28:19 makes two baptisms when Ephesians 4:5 says "one baptism." Since Jesus promised (Acts 1:4) Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5)!

The Scriptures continuously promise Holy Spirit baptism before the cross in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16 and finally Jesus promises Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 1:5 which makes it obvious the "one baptism" is Holy Spirit baptism (Ephesians 4:5).

Since we need "power" to quicken our "DEAD spirits" (Romans 5:12-14; I Corinthians 15:21-22) "back to life" (Ephesians 2:1) as we are "born again of the Spirit" (John 3:5-7) that we receive after Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5;8) when a water baptism is powerless shouldn't the "one baptism" be Holy Spirit baptism?

Since we need "power" that we receive after Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5;8) "to become the sons of God" (John 1:12-13) shouldn't the "one baptism" be Holy Spirit baptism?

Since Jesus "chooses and ordains us" (John 15:16; Acts 1:22) when "He baptizes us with the Holy Ghost" (John 1:33) shouldn't the one baptism be Holy Spirit baptism?

Since Jesus said Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 1:5 but Peter said water in Acts 2:38 who didn't "remember" until Acts 11:15-16 shouldn't the one baptism be Holy Spirit baptism?

Since Peter "remembered" and Jesus revealed to Paul in a "Night Vision" (Acts 18:9-10) there was "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26) for baptism rather than a water baptism (Acts 18:25) shouldn't the one baptism be Holy Spirit baptism?

After Peter "remembered" (Acts 11:15-16) and Jesus had given Paul a "Night Vision" as with "the lying pen of the scribe" added Matthew 28:19 into Scripture so did "the lying pen of the scribes" add water baptism back into Scripture in Acts 19:5 even after Paul had just had his "Night Vision."

Consequently,

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" (Jeremiah 8:8)!

Furthermore, Matthew 28:19 makes all water baptisms "Worship with men's hands" (Acts 17:25) and leaves them "DEAD spirits" (Romans 5:12-14; I Corinthians 15:21-22) NOT "quickened back to life" (Ephesians 2:1) by His "power" (Acts 1:8) we receive after Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5) and

"God is not the God of the DEAD" (Mark 12:27)!

Norine J Williams
  • 13
  • 5