baptism matthew 28

8/12/2019 Baptism Matthew 28

1/5


2/5

Early Quotes by Christian Authors

Even if we cannot find or access early manuscripts before the fourth century to see if they contain Matthew 28.19,

we can still consult the many Christian authors who lived in the second and third centuries to see how they cited it.

Below is a list of a few quotations.

Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4

Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize inrunning water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have runningwater, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on thehead three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one whobaptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one beingbaptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing inwater in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.For Christ also said, Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1

And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, Go and teach allnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the H oly Spirit.

On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: Go, He saith, teach the nations,baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. T he comparison with thislaw of that definition, Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into thekingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.

The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18

And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shallsay thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Thenholding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in ChristJesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under PontiusPilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven,and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: Ibelieve, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, andthe resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a

third time.

Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7

But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the sam e law which the universal churchholds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the sameChrist the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely,that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may beobjected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed


3/5

The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it.

Furthermore, I have not found any controversy over the authenticity of this text anywhere. This is mounting up to

be a really solid case: not only do ALL extant Greek manuscripts with Matthew 28.19 in them contain the

traditional reading, but all of the church fathers in the second and third century that quote or allude to it use the

traditional version. Suddenly the case from Eusebius quotations does not seem so impressive. Even so, lets

consider Eusebius statements to better understand what is happening.

Eusebius of Caesarea

The theory goes that Eusebius quoted a shortened version of Matthew 28.19 before the council of Nicea in a.d. 325

and then quoted the longer, more Trinitarian, version thereafter. This allegedly proves that the church decided to

change the Bible to give more credence to the Trinity theory. I find this hypothesis unconvincing for four reasons.

First of all, Eusebius was not a Trinitarian; he was an Arian. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea had written a letter to

Alexander, the bishop who excommunicated Arius, demanding he restore Arius. Furthermore, Eusebius called a

council in the early 320s at which the gathered bishops vindicated Arius and drafted another letter pressuring

Alexander to reinstate him. Lastly, Eusebius found himself deposed by a council in Antioch shortly before the one

at Nicea for supporting Arius. Now it is true that Eusebius signed the Nicene Creed in a.d. 325, but historians

generally chalk that up to compromise rather than a sudden change of heart. (If he hadnt signed the creed he

would have lost his job as bishop of Caesarea, lost his influence in the debate, and lost his position as one of theemperors advisors.) So, Eusebius is not some super Trinitarian defender like Athanasius, but actually quite the

opposite. He felt uncomfortable with the Nicene Creed and even wrote a kind of damage control letter home to

Caesarea explaining how they were going to understand the new formula. His well-known anti-Nicene position is

probably why he is today not known as Saint Eusebius.

Another reason I find the theory that the Council of Nicea changed the Bible unconvincing is that it would have

given the anti-Nicene party potent ammunition in the sixty year battle that followed. To my knowledge, the

subordinationists never accused the Nicenes of changing the text of Scripture, a charge they surely would have

capitalized on if they could have. Rather the battle centered on the meaning of Scripture and arguments based on

reason. Thirdly, even if the Nicene sect wanted to change Scripture, they had no mechanism to make that a

reality. As Ive already mentioned, the required organization and hierarchy simply did not exist yet. Lastly,Eusebius quoted the shorter version of Matthew 28.19 after Nicea as well (see In Praise of Constantine 16.8,

written in a.d. 336).

So if the conspiracy theory that the evil Eusebius twisted Scripture to inject a Trinitarian dogma is not true,

why did Eusebius so often quote this shorter version? Ancient people did not look up every verse they quoted as

they were writing something. It was more common to memorize Scriptures and pull from memory. Ancient texts

did not have spaces between words nor did they have chapters much less paragraphs. As a result, it would have

been very time consuming to look something up, making authors more likely to quote from memory than try to

find something that they were fairly confident they knew. However, sometimes ones memory can conflate multiple

passages together. To this issue George Beasley-Murray addresses the following:

F. C. Conybeare, in an oft cited article, examined the citations of the text in Eusebius and concluded thatEusebius did not know the longer form of the text until the Council of Nicea, when the Trinitarian doctrinebecame established. The real difficulty [with his view] is to determine whether we have any right to speakof a Eusebian reading. E. Riggenbach, in a lengthy reply to Conybeares article, showed that Eusebiusexercised considerable freedom in quoting the Matthaean text, as is evidenced in the fact that the textappears in various forms, even in one and the same work; after Nicea Eusebius cites the commission in bothlonger and shorter forms; while (in Riggenbachs view) in the letter wr itten by Eusebius in 325, during theCouncil of Nicea, the manner in which he cites the common form of the text suggests that he had been
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism


4/5

familiar with it for a long time. (George Raymond Beasley -Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans 1973), p. 81)

One can easily see how someones memory could blur together bi ts from one verse and another when recalling a

verse. Ive done this and a good number of the textual variants in the gospels are due to scribes remembering a

bit from another gospel and injecting it when it was not originally there. But, just because Eusebius habitually

misquoted Matthew 28.19, does not mean he did not know the full version as well. Everett Ferguson is helpful

here:An examination of Eusebius references where the baptismal command was omitted shows that it wassuperfluous to the context (for in every case the emphasis was on the universality of Christs teaching incontrast to previous religious and civil law), and consideration of Eusebius method of citing Scripture(omitting phrases he counted irrelevant and blending phrases from other passages he counted pertinent)deprives the argument for a shorter text of any validity. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the EarlyChurch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2009), p. 134.)

So, we can more easily account for the Eusebian tendency to quote the shorter version on these grounds rather

than positing a conspiracy wherein the church fathers altered the text of Scripture. To entertain the idea of

changing Scripture because one Christian misquoted a text centuries later would require a much more solid basis

than what we have. Methodologically this wouldnt work anyway. Should scholars start combing through earlyChristian authors and correcting the manuscripts based on quotations? This would be like going to a Christian

bookstore and throwing out all the Bibles and then piecing together a more accurate text based on quotes from

Christian authors!

Contradiction with Acts?

One last supporting reason some use to cast doubt on Matthew 28.19 as we have it relates to baptismal practices

in the book of Acts. If Matthew 28.19 is accurate then Jesus commanded his followers to baptize in the name of

the father and of the son and of the holy spirit. Howe ver, throughout the book of Acts, when baptisms occur, they

never mention this formulaic expression. Here are some examples:

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for theforgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.

Acts 8:16 For it [the holy spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in thename of the Lord Jesus .

Acts 10:47- 48 Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the holy spirit just as we did, can he? And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ . Then theyasked him to stay on for a few days.

Acts 19:5-6 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus . And when Paul hadlaid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and

prophesying.

Allegedly these texts contradict Matthew 28.19. But, is there another way to understand them apart from changing

what the Bible says? Ferguson provides two other options that are well worth considering:

The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism oralternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean abaptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a generalcharacterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the laterhistory the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but
http://books.google.com/books?id=T6Yq9bEMLd4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=beasley-murray&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tS8uUZiNDLOG0QGksIDYCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=T6Yq9bEMLd4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=beasley-murray&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tS8uUZiNDLOG0QGksIDYCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=T6Yq9bEMLd4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=beasley-murray&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tS8uUZiNDLOG0QGksIDYCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=T6Yq9bEMLd4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=beasley-murray&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tS8uUZiNDLOG0QGksIDYCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


5/5

in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there isno necessary contradiction to the description in the name of the Lord in Acts and Paul. (Ferguson, p. 136).

So Ferguson suggests that Acts describes what happened, they were baptized into the name of Jesus, whereas

Matthew describes what words were said, baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy

spirit or that Matthew 28.19 is not formulaic at all. Another possibility is that Acts describes the confession of the

convert whereas Matthew tells us what the baptizer said. It could also be that in the context of Judea, Christians

baptized new people in the name of the Lord Jesus because Jews and God-fearers already had an adequateunderstanding of God and the holy spirit. However, when going out among the nations as in Matthew 28.19, one

needs to also explain who God is (cf. Acts 17) and what the holy spirit is (cf. Acts 19). One final idea is that the

name in Matthew 28.19 is not literal, but the agenda or cause of the father, son, and holy spirit. However we

work out the seeming contradiction, our difficulty here does not warrant changing what Scripture says to read

more smoothly.

Text -> Exegesis -> Theology

The text is primary; it is the foundation. We do not change what Scripture says on the basis of our exegesis or

theology, rather we accept it as a starting point. This is why textual critics develop objective rules to help them

figure out which readings are more accurate. They do not want their theological biases to inform their choices. Fora good window into how thi s process happens see Metzgers Commentary on the Greek New Testament or the NET

Study Bible. We are fortunate today to live in a t ime when the New Testament text is over 99% established based

on centuries of discoveries, cataloging, and comparisons.

This brings me to the second step: exegesis. This word basically means to explain what the text means. The idea is

that we read out (ex) from Scripture rather than into it . Preachers exegete verses every Sunday when they

describe what they mean. Although what the text actually means and what we think it means are hopefully

identical, we cannot allow ourselves to be so arrogant as to say we never err in understanding what something

says.

Now we move to the pinnacle of our work: theology. Ones theology does not d epend on the exegesis of a single

text, but on what many different verses say together. This is the most complex level of understanding and it is the

most prone to error for all of us. However, so long as we keep everything in order text then exegesis then

theology we will end up with more accurate theology. For example, if rather than reading what a verse says and

interpreting it within its context (exegesis) I cherry pick it to support my theology, I will likely end up with wrong

doctrine. Additionally, I cannot allow my theology to change the text of Scripture. Just because I do not believe the

Trinity is true does not give me the right to rid the Bible of a verse like Matthew 28.19. To do so is to go in the

wrong direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

baptism matthew 28

Documents