Home
< <--- Beginning <--- Chap 07 === Chap 09 ---> Ending --->>

VIII. A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF MAT 28:19

 

It is time to examine in detail the phrase in Matthew 28:19 and let the text itself clearly revealed its own falsehood. The following textual arguments from the phrase itself will clearly show that this is a fabricated text and that there is no validity in such phrase.

 

The proper spelling of the name: OK some traditional preacher may say: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Right, so that I can do that correctly, I will write it down, so dear traditionalist preacher please give me;

 

The name of the Father__________________

The name of the Son____________________

The name of the Holy Ghost______________

Please make sure that each name is spelled properly.


Think about this; if I were to ask you the following question what would be your answer.

Question: what is the name of your father and your son and of your spouse?

Would your answer be?

The name of your Father___Father___________

The name of your Son_____Son_____________

The name of your spouse____Spouse_________

Or perhaps your answer would be more like the following

The name of your Father___ James__________

The name of your Son_____Michael_________

The name of your spouse____Jane___________

 

No one knows all the actual names of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: If Matthew 28:19 traditional rendering were the original reading; then we would have to conclude that throughout history no one has ever been baptized using the correct names. No one has ever obeyed that commandment.

How is that? Well first of all there have been and will probably be endless disputes as to the correct vocalization of the name of the heavenly Father. The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the original Hebrew name for God in our times is pronounced as Yahweh, Yahuweh, Yehowah (and many other variations), with each side claiming to be correct, yet neither providing conclusive proof. To those who believe Matthew 28:19 is original I wish them good luck in their search for the correct pronunciation of the name of the Father.

 

The name of the Son is Jesus of course in Hebrew it has been pronounced as Yeshua, Yahshua, or even Yahoshua. So pretty much there is some agreement regarding the name of the son, so you will only have to decide among those. So if you want to baptize people in the Hebrew name of Jesus to be even more literal, go ahead and do it, however most people mispronounce foreign names; that is why most people use translations of names but at least you will be closer to the actual pronunciation than by using the transliterated name “Jesus.”

 

So dear traditionalists, you need to change your triune phrase to use the actual name expected. You need to baptize in the name of Yahweh, Yeshua and… well here is the biggest problem: What is the name of the Holy Ghost?

This is the only place in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is said to have a name. Of course I am not talking about descriptions like Spirit of Truth, The comforter and others like it. The word Holy is not a name, Here is the definition: set apart by (or for) God, holy, sacred. The word Spirit is not a name, here is the definition: wind, spirit. When someone finds the actual personal name of the Holy Ghost, please let me know, I too would like to know it.

There is not one single scripture where Jesus or any of his disciples ever said something like, “This xyz is the name of the father or the name of the Holy Spirit is xyz.” So has anyone ever baptized using the actual names? No they have not; most people have been baptized into titles not actual names. Unless we know the actual spelling and pronunciation of the Father’s name and the actual name of the Holy Spirit, then no one really has been baptized correctly.

 

In Heavenly Arcana (1838) the scientist, inventor, philosopher and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg wrote; “being as much as to say, that he himself their omnipresent Legislator was all that was meant by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whose name they were to baptize and teach. Accordingly his disciples went forth and baptized in the name of Jesus Only.” Of course this guy was a genius and he could figure it out, but it does not really take a genius to understand this simple truth.

 

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are titles not actual names: To those who claim to follow literally the words of Jesus, we would have to say “No one has actually ever fulfilled this commandment.” In order to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then you would have to use the actual name of the Father, the actual name of the Son, and the actual name of the Holy Spirit, instead of those titles.

 

Father is a synonym like God, Lord and Creator but it definitely is not a name. Look in the mirror and see yourself.  If you are a man, your titles or roles could be son, father and husband, depending on who is addressing you or what you are doing. Your own father will call you son, while your own son will call you father, and your wife will call you husband or spouse. So in your home you could be called Son, Father and husband; depending on who is speaking to you, but that does not make you three persons. If you live in an extended family home, you could even have more titles like brother, uncle, cousin and so forth but you still would be only one person. Outside the home other people may call you boss, manager, engineer, salesperson, doctor or whatever. But none of those are your real name.

If you are a woman your titles could be daughter, mother, grandmother, singer, model, actress, vice-president, millionaire and many others. But those are all titles, which any other person can have; your actual name identifies you uniquely.

 

There is a difference between a title and a name. For those who are do not know or understand the difference between a title and a name let me explain it by using a small table.

TITLE

NAME

Father

George

Son

Robert

Mother

Elizabeth

Daughter

Mary

Angel

Michael

Prophet

Elias

Priest

Annas

Carpenter

Joseph

Apostle

Peter

Bishop

James

 

As anyone can see a title describes what a person is or does, but a title does not identify any particular person. The name is individualistic.

Father and Son are roles that a person performs,

A title is given to a role that a person performs.

There were many Apostles (title), but only one apostle Peter.

There are many angels (title) but only one angel Michael.

There were many prophets (title) but only one prophet Elias.

It is simply bad grammar to say.

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of a Title and of a Title and of a Title.

 

Father or Son are family relations not a name. If “The Father” or “The Son” is a name like some traditionalists insist, then “The Mother” or “The Daughter” is also a name. According to their logic we can call any family member a Name “The Uncle”, “The Nephew”, “The Grandfather”, “The Grandson”

“The Brother” “The Sister”, “The Aunt”, “The Cousin” and so on, for according to their foolish logic all those are also names.

            Furthermore if “The Holy Ghost” is a name, so then the Holy garments or the Holy city is also a name and is also anything that has the prefix Holy attached to it.

 

Then any titles can be called a name: To those who still insist that Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a name, then it should be no problem if I say that the following is also a valid baptism.

I baptize you in the name of the God, the son of God and the spirit of God.

I baptize you in the name of the creator, the begotten and the comforter.

I baptize you in the name of the big guy, the son and the dove.

Or even as follows.

I baptize you in the name of the Lord, the Jesus and the Christ.

 

A modern counterpart: To explain even better it let us bring the wording of two thousand years ago and modernize it. See how logically if fits into a similar modern practice. Keep in mind that conversion is compared to being born again.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, registering them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Ghost.

When a child is born, that newborn child is registered. A paper is filled and in this document, there are squares with the word above as Father, Mother and Child. Would you write in the birth registry boxes, the word “Father”, the word “Mother” and the word “Child”? Or would you put in their actual names?

Birth Certificate #1

Father

Mother

Child

Michael

Laura

Joseph

 

Birth Certificate #2

Father

Mother

Child

Father

Mother

Child

 

Which of the above birth registries would be acceptable?
Clearly the second would be disqualified as nonsense.

I would advise the traditional text defenders that the next time they have a son, to fill the birth certificates as follows and then let me know how the hospital deals with them.

Birth Certificate #3

Father

Mother

Child

The Father

The Spouse

The Son

 

When a person is born again, that person is a new creature. Being baptized in the name of Jesus adds that name to the person in a spiritual sense. If Jesus had indeed said that phrase, then Jesus would have at least provided or mentioned the name of the father and the name of the Holy Ghost, so that we could properly fill in the baptism or new birth certificate.

Baptism (New Birth)

Father

Son

Holy Ghost

?

Jesus

?


When we are born again we need to put on the proper name under which we have born again, and that name is Jesus.

 

There is a lack of clarity: If someone says I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

May I ask which Father? There have been and there will be billions of fathers. Any man who has or will beget a child is a father. There is no precision in the generic word Father. Therefore the expression “The name of the father” is meaningless for there are multitudes of fathers. The noun “Father” is not equal to the name Yahweh, which is a very specific name.

The Bible mentions many fathers. Could it be Father Abraham?

Are not the catholic priests called father?

Is not the devil also called a father (John 8:44)?

 

Or which Son? Every man born is a son; this title applies to every male ever born; even the angels are called sons of God. The noun “Son” is not equal to the name Jesus Christ, which is very specific as to which son. Is not Judas Iscariot also called a son (John 17:12)?

 

Or which Spirit? The Bible mentions many spirits, even the 7 spirits of God.

I am sure that all of God is holy so all those 7 spirits can be called holy

So which of those 7 holy spirits are we talking about?

Is there no such thing as the spirit of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2)?

 

You could even baptize in your own name, I mean you are a father, you are also a son, and you are also a spirit. (If you believe you are holy, then you too can claim to have a holy spirit, maybe not the Holy Spirit, but a holy spirit nonetheless.) But when a person is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is clarity and precision, we know exactly in which name we have been baptized.

 

The modern practice of checks: Would you endorse your paycheck as My Name or John Smith
Would you give a check to your father: Pay the order of
My Father or James Smith

If anyone were so dumb as to endorse checks using their titles instead of their real names would soon find out that the bank just will not honor their checks for the proper name is missing.

Go ahead and write a check to your son and write in the: Pay to the order of My Son and let me know if your son can cash that check.

 

I am a Father, a son and a husband, yet I have a single name; am I three persons?

Of course not, those are titles that I have.

I am even willing to write you a check pay to the order of

The Father, the Son and the Husband” or

The Mother, the Daughter, and the wife

Just to be politically correct I will even write it

The person, the child, and the significant other

and let me know if you can cash it.

 

A title is not the same as a name: Perhaps the apostles forgot to ask Jesus what was the name of the father or the Holy Ghost, they probably did not realize they needed to ask those names so they could properly baptize people. The poor apostles baptized only in Jesus name because that is the only name they knew, then after Jesus physically left them, even though they often talked with God, they forgot to ask what was the name of the Father and also forgot to ask for the name of the Holy Spirit.

A.    If you did not know my name and I told you to open a bank account in the name of my father, my son and me. Would you not ask me for my name, my father’s name and my son’s name? What if instead of actually giving you our real names I kept on parroting over and over
“Open a bank account in the name of my father, my son and mine”
Would you not say that I am mad? So how is that any different than saying repeatedly
“Baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”

B.     What if you did know my name, and I told you to buy a property in the name of my father, myself and my holy preacher. Would you not ask me the name of my father and my preacher? What if instead of actually giving you their real names I kept on repeating over and over “in the name of my father, mine and my holy preacher”? Would you not think I am ready for the funny farm?

C.     When you get a car, do you register it under the name "owner" or do you use your real name?

When you register to vote, do you put your name as “voter”, “Democrat”, “Republican” or your real name? When you fill out your income taxes, do you put in under name, “Taxpayer” or put your real name? When you endorse your paycheck, do you sign “employee” or do you sign your real name?
You are all of those things, yet those are simply titles not actual names. I am quite sure that you would use your actual birth name for all those things.

Those who repeat like parrots the traditional phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” do not comprehend that these are titles not names; they are plain ignorant, darn foolish and mule stubborn.

 

D.    Father is a title.
My Father’s name is George
I can call my Father, “Father” out of respect, but when someone asks me what my father’s name is, I say “George”. Only a mentally deranged person would say that the name of their father is father.

Father is not the name of my father, it is his title, a position he holds in our family or a relation that he has with me, but it definitely is not his name.

Son is a title. Michael is a name. You can correctly say the name of your son is Michael.
Only a disturbed person would say the name of your son is son. If some said that the name of your Son was “Son”, you would strive by all means to make this disturbed person understand that Son is a position or relation that your son has with you but that his real name is Michael.

Holy Ghost is a title.* And so is “the Comforter”, “the spirit of truth”, “the Holy Spirit”, “the spirit of Christ”, and “the spirit of God”, yet none of these are real personal names.

 

* Interestingly, in the Greek text of the NT this title is scripted in various ways: “a holy spirit”, “the holy spirit”, “a spirit a holy”, “the spirit the holy”. This clearly indicated that the phrase “the Holy Spirit” in no way is a personal name.

 

I believe I have given plenty of good examples to explain the difference between titles and names. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles not actual names. If you still do not get it, then there is not much more I can do for you. Anyone who after reading this still does not understand the difference needs some serious lessons in the meaning of words or is perhaps ready for the funny farm.

 

Only one name is known: OK if we are to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, shouldn’t we at least know the names?

If we read the verse like this
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name:

Now let me ask a simple question
What is the name?
The answer is obvious; since Jesus is speaking, it is clear that the name is Jesus.

No let us try the traditional way it is written.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

We have to realize that the phrase “of the” makes the next word a genitive, this means "ownership, possession, belonging to".

Now again let me ask the same question. What is the name?
The answer is no longer so obvious; you have to put in a little thought into it.
You will first have to figure the name of each one.
What is the name that belongs to the Father?                   ______________?
What is the name that belongs to the Son?                       Lord Jesus Christ
What is the name that belongs to the Holy Ghost?          ______________?

Has it finally dawn on you that you cannot really answer two of them. Why would Jesus tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and then fail to provide those two other names?

And not only Jesus didn’t provide those names, neither did anyone else did; no Apostle, no prophet nor anyone else in the New Testament ever provided the names of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
If you can actually fill in these lines then you would have the correct names to actually perform a baptism in the traditional manner.

 

The focus of his last words was on himself: Another argument is the focus or emphasis in the last words of Jesus. When using "In my name" you can notice how possessive the statement sounds. Look at how the whole phrase focus starts on Jesus, remains on Jesus and ends in Jesus.

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in my name:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.

 

Just look at how self-centered the phrase is; me, my, I, I. The text flows smoothly because it is all singular. The whole attention is on Jesus; it all points toward Jesus, just like all the New Testament does. It is like he is saying this is my show and I am the star.

Me → Jesus,    My → Jesus,   I → Jesus, I → Jesus

 

However we clearly can see that when the traditional phrase gets put in there, then the whole phrase zigzags. The focus starts on Jesus, then deviates away from him and then goes back to Jesus.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them

in the name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost: (KJV)

Me → Jesus                                                                       I→ Jesus         I → Jesus

Them → father, son and Holy Ghost:


Just look at how the phrase deviates; me, them (the titles), I, I. It starts in the singular; then it goes to the plural and then back to the singular. This clearly is irritating and seems to abruptly move your focus from him, to them, and then back to him. It is too sudden and without any prior warning or prior preparation. It definitely does not feel normal, for the rhythm totally crashes. The violence of this phrase compels us to believe that it has been forcefully inserted there.

 

The phrase uses the wrong perspective: Jesus talks in the first person language, then in baptism he strangely switches to third person, and then he goes back to first person language. A more grammatically correct way for him to have phrased his great commission and still keep it in the first person language would have been for him to say:

Therefore go and teach all nations,

baptizing them in the name of my Father,

in my name and in the name of the Holy Spirit”.

 

The phrase uses the wrong mode: The whole phrase starts and ends in an individualistic mode. The only way for this phrase to make sense would be to change the phrase to a pluralistic mode statement; we would have to change the whole phraseology as follows.

All power is given unto us in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,

baptizing them in the names of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever we have commanded you:
and, lo, we are with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

 

This would be the proper way to phrase it, for it to make sense. Only by making this whole phrase into a plural group statement would it make sense, otherwise the whole phrase should be singular and only have one person (Jesus) mentioned.

Let us try it in by pronouns in the third person:

All power was given unto him in heaven and in earth.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in his (their) name:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he has commanded you:
and, lo, he is with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.

Which pronoun fits better in the second sentence his or their?

 

Let us try it by actual name in the third person:

Supposed this text had been written in the 3rd person. (It is Jesus all the way, every verse is about him)

All power was given unto Jesus in heaven and in earth.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in Jesus’ name:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Jesus has commanded you:
and, lo, Jesus is with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.

 

Let us try it using the titles and see how they fit:

All power was given unto The Son in heaven and in earth.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,

immersing them in name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever The Son has commanded you:
and, lo, The Son is with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.

If The Son has all power why can’t baptism be only in his name?

So we have to observe only what the Son has commanded?

Why is the Son the only one with us? Why can the Father and the Holy Spirit be with us?


There is a totality in the Great Commission: Just look at how the word all fits in, it is like an anchor, which not only give it a nice rhythm and cadence, but also emphasizes a totality. If Jesus is to have it all, then in order for Jesus to really have it all, then he also needs to have baptism done in his name.

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (All locations)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in my name:

(DBT) teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you.

And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age

 

All power........................................... (Totality of power)........ (Jesus’ power)

All realms (in heaven and in earth).... (Totality of location)..... (Jesus’ dominion)

All nations ......................................... (Totality of nations)...... (Jesus’ disciples)

All things .......................................... (Totality of teachings)... (Jesus’ teachings)

All days ............................................. (Totality of time)........... (Jesus’ presence)

The traditional phrase destroys the centricity of Jesus:

When we put the emphasis on the pronoun, the Great Commission becomes Jesus centric.

All power is given unto me ............... Jesus Centric, Jesus has all power

In heaven and in earth....................... Jesus Centric, Jesus kingdom

Make disciples in my name................ Jesus Centric, Jesus name

Whatsoever I have commanded ....... Jesus Centric, Jesus commandments

I am with you all the days................. Jesus Centric, Jesus presence

 

Another comparison

All power is given unto me ............... (Jesus)      All power is given unto me................. (Jesus)

Baptizing them in my name: ............. (Jesus)      Baptizing them in their name:............. (Them)?

whatsoever I have commanded you . (Jesus)      whatsoever I have commanded you.... (Jesus)

and, lo, I am with you all the days.... (Jesus)      and, lo, I am with you all the days...... (Jesus)

 

It all belongs to him, even baptism

All power is given unto me ............... Christ, my Power

Make disciples in my name................ Christians, my disciples

Immersing them in my name............. Jesus Christ, my baptism

Whatsoever I have commanded ....... Gospel, my commandments

I am with you all the days................. Spirit of Christ, my presence

 

Only Jesus and the Apostles: The intimacy of the situation and the phrase itself indicates that it was a one way conversation involving only two parties, like a commander addressing his troops, there were no third parties involved. Let us read carefully Matthew 28:19

In a nutshell Jesus is basically saying 8 things.

1.

(I) got all power

(Jesus)

2.

(you) Go therefore

(Apostles)

3.

(you) Teach all nations

(Apostles)

4.

(you) Baptize them

(Apostles)

5.

(I) my name

(Jesus)

6.

(you) Teach them all things

(Apostles)

7.

(I) have commanded you

(Jesus)

8.

(I) am with you to the end

(Jesus)

 

4 things about Jesus, 4 things about the Apostles.

It is a very intimate and direct and the emphasis is in teaching with no room for other parties. It involves basically two relationships, Jesus and his Apostles. He is giving them instructions that they were to follow. So either they did follow them or they did not.

 

Jesus is outside the apostles are inside: Now look at the way the phrases are placed. The arrangement creates a sense of intimacy and safety at the same time.

Jesus Power - All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Apostles - immersing them in my name: Jesus Name
Apostles - I have commanded you: Jesus Commandment

Jesus Presence - (YLT) and lo, I am with you all the days

 

The words in here are arranged in a sort of cocoon or safety bubble. The Apostles got nothing to fear for they are inside of Jesus in a sort of warm embrace. The powerful Jesus is at the beginning of the commission, the Apostles are safely in the middle two verses, and then in the last verse Jesus promises his presence to the conclusion of the era. Much like the Sandwich technique that is taught in business schools.

 

The numeric count is confused

All power is given unto 1

Baptize them in the name of 3 or perhaps it is 1?

Teach them to observe all what 1 has commanded

1 is with you till the end of the age.

 

Quiz questions about Matthew 28:19

Who is speaking here?

 

Who has all power?

Whose teaching are they to teach?

Who is commanding them?

Who will be with the disciples?

Whom did the Apostles taught about?

Whose name did they use in Baptism?

What one name would answer all these questions correctly?

 

The pronoun is singular, which does not properly match the commandment: The proper way for Jesus would have been to say names not name. Here Jesus is mentioning a plurality of titles, yet uses a singular pronoun. This not only is bad grammar, but it clearly points out that the original wording at one time referred to a singular name, mainly Jesus.

Adding the letter “s” would make it grammatically correct yet at the same time opens a whole can of worms. Just look at it. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the names of the Father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost”, the first question that comes to mind is what those names are? And where in the Bible are those names?

 

Let us see the modes invoked.

All power is given unto me                 - Singular
Go ye therefore                                   - Plural

Immersing them in                            - Singular          

Teaching them to observe all things    - Plural

whatsoever I have commanded you: - Singular
and, lo, I am with you all the days     -Singular

 

Which fits better the mode used?

My name – Singular

The name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost = Singular/Plurality of titles

My name matches all the baptisms done in the book of Acts and mentioned in many other epistles.

The name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would not fit into any NT writings.

 

Jesus was present: In the end of Matthew we see here clearly that Jesus is present and thus he speaks in the first person tense then strangely he switches to the third person he speaks of himself as if he was absent or he was talking about someone else, then he switches again and starts talking of himself in the first person as being present; look carefully at the phrase.

“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:”

To make sense this sentence would have to be structured as the following.

“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and mine and of the Holy Ghost:”

Of course Jesus sometimes referred to himself in the third person, but he often did it when speaking of future events or when it fitted the context, which in this case it does not. For this phrase to make sense within this context, then Jesus would have to say something like “All power is given unto the son, go ye therefore baptizing in the name of the Son”, it would still not include the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

The traditional phrase loses its symmetry and the syntax is awkward: The following argument may not be much of proof to those who are not well versed in the grammatical expressions of the Bible. Serious Bible students understand that there is a certain symmetry and also proper syntax in the scriptures and that is one of the things which makes the Bible be so memorable. Unfortunately the symmetry and the syntax in the traditional phrase are lost.

New Testament professor Donald A. Hagner says: “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 Didymus 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, Matthew 1428, Vol. 33b in The Word Bible Commentary.

A footnote in the NET Bible 2nd Beta Edition, about Mat 28:19 acknowledges that the two participles that follow the main verb (baptizonte, baptizontes, baptizing; and didaskonte, didaskontes, teaching) do not fit the normal pattern for attendant circumstance participles, since they are present participles and follow the aorist main verb.

New Testament professor Otto Michel in (G) Der Abschlus des Matthäusevangeliums (The Conclusion of Matthew’s Gospel) admits that it is difficult to admit the sequence of participles in the traditional text of Matthew 28:19, although he does not say that it is not original, he admits that its syntax is awkward and that we miss some logical order.  Eth, 10, (1950-51): 16-25 (s. 23f.).

So we see here that these two Doctors of Divinity (Hagner & Michel) agree that the traditional text is awkward and does not fit correctly. How strange that when the Eusebius and Annarikhus citation is put in there, two amazing things happen to the phrase, the symmetry is restored and the phrase syntax becomes grammatically correct? This is indeed puzzling to advocates of the traditional text, wonder why? Any 2 year old quickly learns that a cube fits perfectly into a square hole and a ball fits perfectly into a round hole. Could it be that if the puzzle piece “in my name” fits perfectly in there, it is because it originally was in there?

 

The traditional phrase is not poetic: According to Hans Kosmala the traditional phrase destroys what is in reality a hymnic quatrain Hebrew poem. The length of each clause varies and it is out of balance, it becomes a jarring prose and it sounds unnatural with the whole phrase becoming discordant, the rhyme is lost and it becomes plain prose, which is not in keeping with the poetic nature of the Bible. When some people think of poetry they think of rhyme, but Hebrew poetry does not rely upon rhyme. A major concept that Hebrew Poetry uses is to create parallel passages or contrasting passages of similar length.

When the phrase uses “in my name” in the text of Mt. 28, 16-20 “The Eusebius and Annarikhus conclusion has a definitely poetical and almost elegant form. It is a self-contained unit of four lines. It is well balanced in its structure and the lines follow one after the other in a logical sequence; this cannot be said of the traditional conclusion.”, “The structure of the fourlined stanza is thus in perfect old Hebrew style” Look at it and see it indeed has the structure of a fourlined stanza. Look at how Kosmala cited it.

All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth

Go make all nations disciples in my name,

Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

And behold, I am with you all the days till the consummation of the aeon.

 

Kosmala further states “Jesus, and Jesus alone, is in the centre of this conclusion.”, “the vital inference from the whole gospel. It must, therefore, somehow bring out or stress once more what had been in the mind of the author or editor of the Gospel. Jesus is endowed with immerse power; his name, in the words of an old and most likely pre-Pauline hymn, has been raised “above all names” “in heaven and on earth” (Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:4 also points this out emphatically).

Here is a diagram that brings this more clearly into focus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly if there is going to be a baptism is has to be in his name.

 

New Testament scholar H. Benedict Green said about the traditional phrase in Matthew 28:19 “(it) breaks up the regular rhythmical pattern which can be detected in the rest of the passage…The readily recognizable verse-structure of this, with its recurrent emphasis on the word all, amounts to a strong internal argument for the originality of the shorter text, despite the unanimity of the surviving MSS, in favour of the longer. The alteration would have had to be made very early” The Gospel according to Matthew (1975) New Clarendon Bible.

 

Look at it again

All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth

Go make all nations disciples in my name,

Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

And behold, I am with you all the days till the consummation of the aeon.

 

Every single verse is about Jesus, he is the sole focus at the beginning, the middle and the end.

If Jesus has all power then it should be proper that he should also have all the attention.

 

It should have been spelled it out clearly: If Jesus had really wanted us to use each person in baptism then he would have said it properly as follows. The form should have been either in the names, however lacking that then it should have been 'in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit.' Naming each one individually.

 

In the name not in the words: If Jesus had wanted us to really use those words, he would have been explicit and said to use those words.

baptizing them using the WORDS in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or

baptizing with the following WORDS, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or baptizing them in the WORDS, Father, Son and Holy Ghost:

 

It is a Latinized phrase: This phrase is indeed a Latinized phrase that sharply contrasts with the common Paleo-Hebrew Aramaic used in the time of Jesus. The first person to bring attention to this incongruity was the Hebrew Scholar Szymon Budny, but he is not the only one who has commented that this ending does not appear to conform to Jewish linguistics rules.

 

It is improper: If Father, Son and Holy Spirit were real a real name then it would make no sense at all to add the article the before it. There is no proper name that begins with the word the. You do not call yourself “the Michael, the James or the John”. The proper way to conduct such baptism would be to say “I baptize you in the name of Michael, James and John.” It would be totally ridiculous to say I baptize you in the name of the Michael, of the James and of the John” If Father, Son and Holy Spirit were real names the proper way would be to say “I baptize you in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and not “I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

 

The mention of the Father and the Holy Spirit is unexpected: Look at the text how there is no mention at all in chapter 28 of the Father or the Holy Spirit; it is simply sprung up unexpectedly. The prior mention of the Father is back in Chapter 26:52 and the prior mention of the Spirit is even further back in Matthew 22:43. Then suddenly without any immediate or nearby mention, the Father and the Holy Spirit are mentioned and then without any tie or relevant connection to the subject? Look at the other Great commission text in the other gospels and you will see that the focus on them is entirely on Jesus.

 

This phrase fits better in the Gospel of Luke: If you look at the Great commission in Luke, you will realize that this phrase fits better in there because Jesus in there speaks of himself in the third person and also because of the mention of the father and of receiving power from on high, of which there is a reprise in Acts 1:4-5, but the phrase looks out of place in Matthew precisely because of those factors.

 

Jesus mention of himself: Jesus always calls himself the Son of man, in Matthew (32 times), in Mark (15 times), in Luke (25 times), in John (10 times).

The only place where Jesus calls himself the Son of God is in the Gospel of John (5 times)

The only time in Matthew that he calls himself “the Son” is in verse 11:27. Which strangely enough is called a “Johannine logion”; because there is suspicion that this text comes from the Gospel of John.  Although the text is considered genuine to Jesus yet the syntax and words used in that phrase are similar to that often used by John and not that used by Matthew, Mark or Luke.

 

Matthew 11:27                                                                        Luke 10:22

All things have been handed over to me by my Father,           All things have been committed to me by my Father

and no one knows the Son except the Father,              No one knows who the Son is except the Father

and no one knows the Father except the Son               no one knows who the Father is except the Son

and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.  and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

 

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands

John 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands

John 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father

John 7:29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me

John 17:25 Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me

 

It is indeed strange that Jesus refers to himself as “The Son” in Matthew 28:19, for it would have been more expected of him to use the phrase “The Son of man”, for the term “The Son” is more proper to the Gospel of John.

Also this is the only other place where he also refers to “The Father” in all the other verses in Matthew he always refers to God as “my Father” or “your father”.

Also it is quite interesting that Jesus only mentions the Holy Ghost twice in one single occasion in Matthew 12:31-32, yet in that occasion there is no mention, reference or any relation to the father.

 

The order of the phrase: The father is mentioned first, then the Son and third the Holy Spirt, but this order is incorrect for in the scriptures The Father and the Holy Spirit are mentioned before Jesus was born. So the proper order to mention them should be in the name of the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son. “It is obvious that the location of this word (Son) between ‘Father’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ is virtually a claim that the Son stands on the same level with them. The position takes him up, as it were, into the very center of the Deity. But to this claim the words of Jesus in our oldest sources stand opposed. Unique and divine as is their claim regarding the character of the Master a claim like that of the Baptismal formula, but in the clearest, most unambiguous terms assert what is diametrically opposed to the implication of that passage. They assert manhood; they deny attributes of deity (e.g., omniscience and absolute goodness). Therefore it is impossible to hold that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels can have spoken the words of the Baptismal formula” The Biblical World , p. 374, vol. 34, No. 6, Dec., 1909, by Doctor of Theology George Holley Gilbert.

 

< <--- Beginning <--- Chap 07 === Chap 09 ---> Ending --->>
Home