Matthew 28:19 – Authentic Baptismal Command?

Below you will find a series of historical quotes and analyses addressing the question of whether the biblical verse Matthew 28:19,

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

(Elberfelder translation), in its currently known form, is authentic or has been altered.

The oldest existing manuscripts containing the verse Matthew 28:19 date back to the 4th century AD, around the time of the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. There is a significant temporal gap of several centuries between the original composition of the Gospel of Matthew and these manuscripts.

Eusebius of Caesarea, who lived in 3. and He lived in the 4th century and is considered an important historical source, often referred to as the “Father of Church History.” In his writings, including his “Church History,” Eusebius quotes the verse Matthew 28:19. However, his quotes of this verse regularly end with the words “in my name,” which differs from the trinitarian baptismal formula in modern Bible editions.

Geographically, the earliest manuscripts containing Matthew 28:19 were located in regions heavily influenced by the doctrinal beliefs of the early church at that time. During this time, the doctrine of the Trinity was already widespread in certain areas, especially in the western part of the Roman Empire and in major urban centers, while in other regions, it was not yet firmly established.

The combination of these factors – the temporal gap between the original composition and the oldest manuscripts, the differing citation by Eusebius, and the geographical and theological context of the manuscripts – provides a basis for further investigations and discussions on the authenticity of Matthew 28:19.

The question of the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not only of interest to scholars; it lies at the heart of the development of the Christian belief system. Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent historian of the 4th century, provides essential evidence in this discussion. In mehreren seiner Schriften, insbesondere in der “Demonstratio Evangelica” (Beweis des Evangeliums, Buch III, Kapitel 6, 132(a), S. 152), zitiert er den Vers mit der alternativen Formulierung “in meinem Namen”, was die Angelegenheit komplexer macht.

In his letters, Paul emphasizes the significant role of the name of Jesus, especially in Philippians 2:10, where he states: “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow”. This emphasis on the “name” as a singular term appears to contradict a trinitarian interpretation and implies a particular uniqueness that does not seem compatible with the trinitarian wording in Matthew 28:19.

Eusebius of Caesarea, whose works are considered one of the most important historical sources for early Christianity, provides further interesting insights in this regard. In the “Demonstratio Evangelica” (Book III, Chapter 7, 136(ad), p. 157) and in his “Laus Constantini” (Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8), he repeatedly speaks of the “power of Christ” that gives the disciples the authority to “make disciples of all nations in my name.”

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the baptismal practice in the New Testament, as portrayed especially in the Acts of the Apostles, is consistently carried out “in the name of Jesus” rather than “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Examples of this are Acts 2:38 (“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”) and Acts 10:48 (“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord”). This consistent practice could be seen as an additional indication of the authenticity of the version of Matthew 28:19 quoted by Eusebius.

The question of the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 becomes additionally complex when considering the writings of the Church Fathers. Justin Martyr, an apologist of the 2nd century, for example, uses the trinitarian formula in his “First Apology” (Chapter 61). This could be interpreted as evidence for the early use of the trinitarian formula, but it contrasts with Eusebius’ repeated citation of “in my name” in works such as the “Demonstratio Evangelica” (Book III, Chapter 6, 132(a), p. 152).

In the writings of Origen, another influential Church Father of the 3rd century, the trinitarian baptismal formula is also found, as in his commentary on the Gospel of John (Book VI, Chapter 17). However, these works are dated later than the writings of Eusebius and may thus reflect the influence of an established trinitarian orthodoxy.

The question of the authenticity and possible alteration of Matthew 28:19 is not just a matter of textual-critical analysis; it also raises significant questions about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity and the theological intention of the Gospel of Matthew. These discrepancies could suggest that the original formulation of the verse and thus the theological orientation of early Christianity may have been different from the prevailing interpretations today.

The verse Matthew 28:19 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” – is often cited as a trinitarian foundation. However, this verse does not explicitly formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not provide information about the consubstantiality of the three entities or that they should be considered as a single deity.

The aspect is further strengthened by the context of New Testament baptism practice. In the Acts of the Apostles, baptisms are conducted “in the name of Jesus Christ.” For example, in Acts 2:38 (Elberfelder): “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each one 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.'” Similar formulations are found in other passages in Acts, suggesting that baptism in early Christianity was predominantly done in the name of Jesus rather than in the Trinitarian formula. For example, in Acts 8:12 (Elberfelder): “But when they believed Philip preaching good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women”; Acts 8:16 (Elberfelder): “For he had not fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”; Acts 10:48 (Elberfelder): “And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days”; Acts 19:5 (Elberfelder): “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”; and Acts 22:16 (Elberfelder): “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

Furthermore, the apostle Paul emphasizes in his letters to the Romans and Galatians the baptism in the context of faith in Jesus Christ, In Romans 6:3 (Elberfelder), he writes: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” and in Galatians 3:27 (Elberfelder): “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

These Pauline statements focus strongly on the name of Jesus and his central role in the baptism ceremony. This could be interpreted as further evidence that the New Testament baptism practice was primarily done in the name of Jesus rather than in the Trinitarian formula. It is interesting to note that this perspective on the baptism practice in the name of Jesus Christ is not only in line with the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles but also with the theological interpretation of baptism formulated by Paul.

The implications of these observations are multifaceted. Firstly, they raise the question of whether the Trinitarian formulation in Matthew 28:19 (Elberfelder: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) could be a later addition. This notion gains weight when considering the writings of the Church Father Eusebius of Caesarea, who repeatedly quoted the verse with the formulation “in my name,” as seen in his “Demonstratio Evangelica” (Book III, Chapter 6, 132(a), p. 152).

Secondly, the observations suggest that the focus of the New Testament baptism practice is on the name of Jesus. This assessment is supported by the Acts of the Apostles, where several baptism events take place “in the name of Jesus Christ” (e.g., Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'”). It is also reinforced by the Pauline letters, which see baptism in close connection with Jesus Christ (e.g., Romans 6:3: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”).

These observations appear to be inconsistent with the Trinitarian interpretation of Matthew 28:19 and could indicate that the theological orientation of early Christianity in this regard may have been different from the predominant Trinitarian interpretations today.

In summary, it can be said that although Matthew 28:19 is often cited as a Trinitarian foundation, neither the verse itself nor the context of the New Testament baptism practice definitively confirms this interpretation. The baptism practice in the name of Jesus, as documented in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters, suggests that the doctrine of the Trinity is neither explicitly confirmed nor refuted by this verse.

Baptism as a ritual act of the Christian community holds a symbolic significance deeply rooted in the concept of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is this Jesus Christ who was crucified, buried, and resurrected. Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 1:13 (Elberfelder) are enlightening here:

“Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

The implicit answer is: No, we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because only He paid the price for our sins.

This is further underscored by Mark 16:16 (Elberfelder):

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”

The name invoked during baptism is interesting. Acts 22:16 (Elberfelder) makes it clear:

“And now, why do you wait?” “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

Note that it does not say to call on the “name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 4:12 (Elberfelder) provides another precise assessment:

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Here again, it is the name of Jesus Christ that holds the saving character.

This concept is further highlighted in Acts 2:38 (Elberfelder):

“But Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each one 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.'”

This consistent focus on the name of Jesus Christ in the baptism practice of the New Testament stands in striking contrast to Matthew 28:19 (Elberfelder):

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Various sources raise questions about the authenticity of this verse. Eusebius of Caesarea, a Church Father, quoted this verse in his “Demonstratio Evangelica” differently, as “in my name,” which raises questions about the authenticity of the Trinitarian baptismal command.

The analysis concludes that although Matthew 28:19 is often cited as a Trinitarian foundation, the consistent practice and theology of the New Testament in the context of baptism revolve around the name of Jesus Christ. This raises the question of whether the verse in Matthew 28:19 in its current form could be a later insertion. The evidence, both textual and historical, seems to favor a baptismal practice in the name of Jesus Christ rather than in a Trinitarian format.

The question of the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 and its potential adaptation is a crucial point. It has far-reaching implications for the Christian understanding of the deity, especially in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The oldest surviving manuscript containing Matthew 28:19 dates back to the 4th century, creating a temporal gap of several centuries between the original composition of the Gospel of Matthew and the earliest available textual witnesses. This fact significantly complicates the determination of the original form of the text.

Furthermore, the practice of the early Church, as documented in the New Testament, contradicts the Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. This discrepancy is further complicated by the quotes from Eusebius of Caesarea, who quotes the verse differently, giving it an alternative, less Trinitarian interpretation.

Additionally, scientific research in this area is not immune to ideological influences. Theologians trained in denominational institutions may potentially be influenced by already established dogmatic positions. Salary and career often interact with official statements in these cases. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is a central tenet in many Christian denominations, and theological institutions that support this doctrine may tend to interpret evidence in a way that supports this doctrine. This poses a potential “challenge” for objective scientific research.

Ultimately, the question of the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not definitively resolvable based on the available evidence. The existing manuscripts, the earliest quoting Church Fathers, and the New Testament practice present a complex picture that does not allow for definitive conclusions. Therefore, it is both intellectually honest and methodologically necessary to acknowledge the limitations of the available data and consider the possibility that the current text of Matthew 28:19 could be the result of later editorial activity.

In this regard, the door remains open for further research and discussion, but based on the current state of evidence, claiming a definitive textual alteration or authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not justified. What remains is a theological and scientifically complex field that reveals both the difficulty of proving and the challenge of maintaining scientific objectivity amidst deeply rooted theological convictions.