Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Second attepmt for attachment of Subj: "Mathew 28:19"

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Daniel
    Second attempt attachment of Sub: Mathew 28:19 Closer Looks to Mathew 28:19 Note From the Editor This booklet is an edited reprint of a publication which was
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 18, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Second attempt attachment of Sub: "Mathew 28:19"
      Closer Looks to Mathew 28:19

      Note From the Editor

      This booklet is an edited reprint of a publication which was
      originally written in 1961 and titled "A Collection of the Evidence
      For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in
      Matthew 28:19," written by Pastor A. Ploughman of Birmingham,
      England. It has been edited for readability and completeness.
      Pastor Ploughman's original work can be read in it's entirety by
      visiting the website of the Jesus Messiah Fellowship. Copies of the
      original work are available there for a nominal price.

      We are greatly indebted to Pastor Ploughman, who has now passed on,
      for his scholarly effort. He received the Holy Ghost in the 1914
      Welsh revival, established 3 works in England, and invested his
      life's earnest into his writing about Matthew 28:19. His passion for
      exposing the fraud of early scribes continues to be a blessing to
      many.

      The question of the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not a matter of
      how easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of any
      churches doctrinal views. It is a matter of recovering the very words
      of our Lord, remembering that His Word, and not our own, is eternal.

      The presentation of facts in this book, I believe, is fair, to the
      point and extremely relevant to our faith. The lengths to which
      Pastor Ploughman went to support the conclusions drawn may seem
      tedious to some, but for the serious student of the Word it will only
      begin to whet the appetite for more personal exploration.
      It has been said, "Study without reflection is useless, but
      reflection without study is dangerous." I hope then, that you will
      allow the facts contained in this booklet to stimulate your mind, and
      resonate in your spirit . You will be blessed!
      -Mark Kennicott

      Preface to the Second Edition

      The importance of this subject is discussed at length in the last
      chapter of this booklet.

      In more than fifty years as a student of the Bible, and an enquirer
      in the sphere of Biblical knowledge, I have not seen or heard of
      anything dealing with this question of the authenticity of Matthew
      28:19, apart from articles and letters in periodicals and books, now
      out of print, and encyclopedias (which are inaccessible to most
      people.)

      This collection of information is concerned with the actual text of
      scripture, and not with any teaching, formal or otherwise, that
      arises as a result. However, in the chapter dealing with internal
      evidence regarding Matthew 28:19, doctrine will of necessity be a
      factor while exploring the genuineness of the text.
      As a rule, teaching (or doctrine) is based on the text of scripture.
      This body of evidence is not meant to discover what teaching to
      ascribe to the text, but to discover the actual text itself.
      Pastor A. Ploughman
      January 1, 1962

      Introduction

      "Every word of God is pure." Proverbs 30:5
      "Through thy precepts I get understanding, therefore I hate every
      false way." Psalms 119:104

      Many have had difficulty concerning the phraseology of Matthew 28:19,
      and have written to editors of periodicals seeking answers. Most
      respondents however, have merely glossed over the difficulty with
      quips, quotes, ideology and exhortation. Of course, all of these have
      their place, but not at the expense of arriving at the truth.

      The difficulty, left largely unanswered, surrounds the
      words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
      of the Holy Ghost." This phrase has been questioned, not because of
      any certain doctrine it lends itself to, but rather because of the
      early witnesses that attest to a different reading, and to the
      grammar and syntax of the words themselves.
      Is the "name-phrase" of Matthew 28:19 genuine? Or is it, like
      the "three witnesses" of 1 John 5:7-8, a spurious addition introduced
      into early manuscripts to bolster an emerging doctrine? To understand
      the importance of this question, let us consider the words of noted
      nineteenth century biblical scholar F.C. Conybeare (1856-1924):

      "Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three
      witnesses of 1 John 5:7-8 shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task
      of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity...(the spurious
      words added in 1 John)...are now abandoned by all authorities except
      the Pope of Rome. By consequence the entire weight of proving the
      Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19."
      Perhaps the reason that serious scholarly efforts have not been made
      to discover (or proclaim) the truth is because to do so would
      undermine the very foundation of traditional post-Nicene theology.
      After all, if indeed the titles "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" were
      added, and were not the words of our Lord, then what scriptural
      authority do we have for baptizing in any name except the name of
      Jesus? The answer: None whatsoever.

      However, what is important is not what the implications of our
      inquiry might possibly be, but rather that we might find the truth.
      To discover what words Matthew actually wrote is the purpose and goal
      of this study.
      We will begin by discussing textual criticism in general, and then
      apply those principles to our text in question.
      In the end, you will learn through tried and proven methods of
      textual criticism what words were penned by Matthew, and what words
      were added by others to the sacred writ.

      We would do well to begin by remembering the strict warning contained
      within the scripture itself:

      "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
      diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord
      your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

      On Textual Criticism Generally

      Textual Criticism refers to the methodical and objective study of
      various documents with the aim of retrieving the original form of the
      text or at least the form closest to the original.

      As applied to the New Testament, this means selecting from the many
      variants contained in the manuscript tradition the one which most
      likely represents the primitive reading.

      Most Bible Helps contain a brief description of the methods of
      Textual Criticism. For a brief synopsis, let us look to Swete, in
      the "Aids to the Student" in the Variorum Bible:

      On Textual Criticism in general:

      "The text of the New Testament rests upon the combined testimony of
      streams of documentary evidence: extant manuscripts of the original
      Greek, ancient versions, and the `patristic' quotations, i.e.
      passages cited by a succession of ancient Christian writers known
      as `the fathers'."

      Concerning Manuscript Evidence:

      "The autographs (originals) of the New Testament scriptures were
      probably lost within a few years after they were written. No early
      Christian writer appeals to them as still existing... men...could not
      anticipate their importance to posterity."

      Concerning Early Versions:

      "Next in importance to manuscripts as channels for the transmission
      of the text of the Greek Testament must be placed the ancient
      Versions, which were made from Greek manuscripts, in most cases older
      than any which we now possess. The Old Latin and Syriac Versions
      belong to the second century, and carry us back to the lifetime of
      some of the immediate successors of the Apostles."

      Concerning the Patristic Writings:

      "So extensive are the quotations of the New Testament in the Greek
      and Latin Christian writers of the first five centuries that it would
      have been possible, in the event of all the manuscripts of the Canon
      having perished, to recover nearly the whole of the text from this
      source alone...there remains a large number of instances in which
      patristic authority goes far to turn the scale in favor of a disputed
      reading, or against it."

      Using the above sources of textual criticism, and also with what is
      styled as internal evidence, we can with great confidence recover the
      true reading of our text. With regards to Matthew 28:19, the
      Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ERE hereafter) has this to say:

      "It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view...if it
      were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but it's
      trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism,
      literary criticism and historical criticism." (Vol. 2, pg 380,
      under "Baptism - Early Christian)

      Let us now employ these methods to discover the true reading of
      Matthew 28:19...

      Evidence of the Manuscripts

      If Greek Manuscripts of Matthew's gospel were our only source for
      establishing a reading of the text, then there would be no need for
      further study, as all extant manuscripts contain the name-
      phrase "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
      of the Holy Ghost." Again from the ERE:
      "In all extant manuscripts... the text is found in the traditional
      form."
      However, it must be remembered that we have no extant (currently
      known to exist) manuscripts that were written in the first, second or
      even third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years
      between the actual writing of Matthew and our earliest manuscript
      copies.

      It must also be remembered that no single manuscript is free from
      textual error. Some have errors peculiar to themselves, and some
      whole families of manuscripts have the same errors. The textual
      critic aims to reproduce from an examination of all the evidence what
      was probably the original words.
      But from the facts stated, it is within possibility that all the
      existing manuscripts may have one or more textual errors in common.
      That fact must be admitted, however reluctantly.

      Another fact that we have to face is that during that time gap of
      three hundred years false teaching thrived and developed into the
      Great Apostasy.
      According to renowned textual critic Dr. C. R. Gregory:
      "The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often
      altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were
      familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings."

      How these changes were made will be discussed further in a later
      chapter. Another writer had this to say of the "weight" given to
      manuscript evidence:
      "A great step forward is taken when we propose to give manuscripts
      weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the
      text which they contain. To Tregelles must be ascribed the honor of
      introducing this method of procedure, which he appropriately
      called `Comparative Criticism'. It is a truly scientific method, and
      leads us for the first time to safe results. But a little
      consideration will satisfy us that as an engine of criticism, this
      method is far from perfect. It will furnish us with a text that is
      demonstratively ancient, and this, as a step toward the true text, is
      a very important gain. It is something to reach a text that is
      certainly older than the fourth century, that was current in the
      third or even the second century. But this can be assumed to be
      autographic only if we can demonstrate that the text current in the
      second or third century was an absolutely pure text. So far from
      this , however, there is reason to believe that the very grossest
      errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the
      second century. If our touchstone only reveals to us texts that are
      ancient, we cannot hope to obtain for our result anything but an
      ancient text. What we wish, however, is not merely an ancient text
      but the true text."

      Of course, when the writer speaks of `the grossest errors,' he is not
      speaking of errors of teaching, but as a textual critic, of errors in
      the text itself. Some of these textual corruptions occurred
      concurrently with corruptive teaching in the early church. This
      reality will be dealt with later in this study.

      Where are the Earliest Manuscripts?

      The fact that we have no copies of the scriptures that date any
      earlier than the fourth century naturally begs the question, "What
      happened to the earliest manuscripts?" The following quotes serve in
      no small way to answer that question:

      "Diocletian, in 303 a.d., ordered all of the sacred books to be
      burnt, though enough survived to transmit the text." -Swete in
      Variorum "Aids to the Student."
      One reason why no early manuscripts have been discovered is that they
      were, when found, burned by the persecutors of the early church
      before Christianity became a "state" religion in the time of
      Constantine. Eusebius, who tended the great library at Caesarea,
      wrote:

      "I saw with my own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to
      their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned
      to the fire in the open market place."

      Dr. Wescott, in his "General Survey of the History of the Canon of
      the New Testament, wrote (pg. 383):

      "Among such scenes he could not fail to learn what books men held to
      be more precious than their lives."

      Indeed, even the great library at Caesarea suffered from this time of
      persecution. According to Jerome, quoted in "The Principle Uncial
      Manuscripts of the New Testament" by Hatch:

      "About a.d. 350, two priests, Acacius and Euzoius, undertook the task
      of restoring the damaged library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, and
      replaced the old papyrus books with vellum copies." -Jerome Ep. xxxiv.

      From our first method of inquiry, we can thus deduce the following
      facts:

      1. All known manuscripts support the trine name-phrase found in
      Matthew 28:19.
      2. Early copyists made changes to the text, some in error, some on
      purpose, but changes nonetheless. Textual Criticism for the most part
      exposes these changes quite readily.
      3. It is possible that the earliest corruptions of scripture have
      been preserved in all extant manuscript evidence.
      4. The goal of Textual Criticism is not merely to find the earliest
      text, but to find the actual text.
      5. Manuscripts dating before the fourth century do not exist in large
      part because of the widespread persecution of the early church and
      the consequent destruction of sacred writings.

      Because of the above facts, manuscript evidence alone will not
      suffice to reveal the true text in our study. We must now turn to the
      second body of evidence to be considered, the Early Versions.

      Evidence of the Versions

      As with the evidence in manuscripts, all extant Versions which
      contain the end of Matthew contain the Threefold Name.

      But of course, in the arena of Textual Criticism, there is more to be
      considered than what is present in a document. One must also take
      into consideration what is absent.

      We quote again from the ERE (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics):
      "In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional
      form ...though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both
      of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective
      at this point."

      F.C. Conybeare further elaborates:

      "In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older
      reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript,
      the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew."

      So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional name-
      phrase of Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not
      contain the verse at all. And curiously, not because of omission, but
      because of removal!

      Granted, we can not be sure why these precious pages were destroyed,
      but for the sake of our study we are now compelled to consult our
      next authority, the "Patristic Writings."

      "In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these
      doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing
      patristic evidence against it, so weighty that in the future the most
      conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic
      fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as
      completely as they have its fellow-text of the `Three Witnesses'." -
      F.C. Conybeare in the Hibbert Journal

      How true is this? What are the facts? While no manuscript from the
      first three centuries is in existence, we do have the writings of at
      least two men who did actually possess, or had access to, manuscripts
      much earlier than our earliest.
      There are also others, who quoted Matthew 28:19, whose written works
      we now posses, that date much earlier than our best manuscript copies.
      Who were these men? When did they write? Were they reliable and
      exact? How did they quote Matthew 28:19? These are all questions that
      must now be answered.

      In the pages ahead we will consider evidence from the following men,
      either by direct quotation from their writings, or indirectly through
      the writings of their contemporaries:

      1) Eusebius of Caesarea, 2) The unknown author of De Rebaptismate, 3)
      Origen, 4) Clement of Alexandria, 5) Justin Martyr, 6) Macedonius, 7)
      Eunomius and 8) Aphraates.

      Before we turn to the witness of these early writers, let it be
      emphatically stated, that if the question under consideration were
      one of theology, the evidence of these "fathers" would be of no value
      whatsoever.

      Our doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of God alone, and
      not from any other source. These so-called "fathers" lived in an age
      of theological darkness and rampant heresy. Their testimony is
      valuable only because it provides a witness to manuscripts of the
      scripture much older than our current copies.

      Therefore, our search through their writings is not to establish any
      doctrine or theology, but to find an early witness to the verse in
      question.

      Eusebius of Caesarea

      Our first witness will be Eusebius of Caesarea, also known as
      Eusebius Pamphili. He was born around 270 a.d., and died around 340
      a.d. He lived in times of gross spiritual darkness, was a
      Trinitarian, and in later life assisted in the preparation of the
      Nicene Creed.

      Regarding our inquiry into Matthew 28:19, Eusebius will serve as our
      key witness. Therefore, to establish his veracity as a credible
      witness, let us consider the following quotes:

      Robert Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg 10
      "Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we are indebted for the preservation
      of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which would have
      perished had he not collected and edited them."

      E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923
      "Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned
      theologian of his time...worked untiringly for the acceptance of the
      pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the
      Apostles...Eusebius...relies throughout only upon ancient
      manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot
      find sufficient testimony."

      Mosheim, in an editorial footnote
      "Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man of vast
      reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his
      labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of
      theological learning. Chapter 2, 9...Till about 40 years of age he
      lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilus, a learned and
      devout man of Caesarea, and founder of an extensive library there,
      from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning."

      Dr. Wescott, in "General Survey," page 108
      "Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history
      of the New Testament."

      Peake Bible Commentary, page 596
      "The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century
      was Eusebius of Caesarea...Eusebius was a man of little originality
      or independent judgment. But he was widely read in the Greek
      Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of
      which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep
      debt to his honest, if some-what confused, and at times not a little
      prejudiced, erudition."

      Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature
      "Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either
      directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In
      many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one
      or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without
      finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital
      question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the
      materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is
      well known...The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his
      imputation...Eusebius contents himself with condemning these
      sins...in general terms, without entering into details...but it
      leaves no imputation on his honesty."
      Mosheim, again in an editorial note

      "Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best
      helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded."

      F.C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October, 1902
      "Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it
      stood in the Greek Manuscripts from about 300-340 a.d., none is so
      important as Eusebius of Caesarea, for he lived in the greatest
      Christian Library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus
      had collected. It is no exaggeration to say from this single
      collection of manuscripts at Caesarea derives the larger part of the
      surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his Library, Eusebius must have
      habitually handled codices of the gospels older by two hundred years
      than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our
      libraries."
      Having considered the honesty, ability and opportunity of Eusebius as
      a witness to the New Testament text, let us now move on to what
      evidence he presents concerning Matthew.

      The Evidence of Eusebius

      According to the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius
      among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted
      texts of the Holy Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the
      falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional
      reading of Matthew 28:19."
      Further inquiry has failed to pinpoint the exact compilation referred
      to, as Ludwig Knupfer, the Editor, has since written, "through events
      of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with
      the magazine." But various authorities mention a work
      entitled `Discrepancies in the Gospels,' and another work
      entitled `The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.'

      According to Conybeare:
      "Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works
      written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the
      Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in
      his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor
      Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of
      Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in
      the following form:

      `Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching
      them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'

      I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena
      published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die
      neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in
      Darmstadt in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the
      verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a
      way as to show how much he set store by the words `in my name'. Thus,
      in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p. 136):

      `For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations"
      simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition "in
      his name". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation
      that the Apostle says, "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." It was right therefore that
      he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but
      hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and
      make disciples of all the nations in my name".'

      Conybeare proceeds, in Hibbert Journal, 1902:
      "It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very
      ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before
      his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had
      never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and
      attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written
      in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one `Against Marcellus of
      Ancyra,' and the other `About the Theology of the Church,' he used
      the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely
      a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of
      Caesarea."
      In his `Textual Criticism of the New Testament' Conybeare writes:
      "It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius
      inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine,
      some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no
      mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has
      been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of
      Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the
      many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of
      Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the
      discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading."

      An objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argued that
      Eusebius indeed found the traditional text in his manuscripts, but
      substituted the shorter formula in his works for fear of vulgarizing
      and divulging the sacred Trinitarian formula.

      It is interesting to find a modern Bishop reviving the very argument
      used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-
      8. According to Porson (in a preface to his Letters):

      "Bengel...allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no
      genuine manuscripts...Surely then, the verse is spurious! No! this
      learned man finds a way of escape. `The passage was of so sublime and
      mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew
      it from the public books, till it was gradually lost.' Under what a
      lack of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an
      argument!?"

      Conybeare continues, refuting the argument of the Bishop of Ely:
      "It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius' argument, when
      he cites the text, involves the text `in my name.' For, he asks, `in
      whose name?' and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in
      his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10."
      Finally, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states:

      "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-
      one times, either omitting everything between `nations'
      and `teaching,' or in the form `make disciples of all the nations in
      my name,' the latter form being the more frequent."

      Having considered the evidence of Eusebius, let us now look at the
      other early writers on our `witness list.'

      Other Early Writings

      The Author of De Rebaptismate
      "The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so
      understood them, and dwells at length on `the power of the name of
      Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism'". From Smith's Dictionary of the
      Bible, Vol. I, page 352.
      Origen

      "In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the
      verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at
      the words `the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text
      has been censored, and the words which followed, `in my name', struck
      out." - Conybeare

      Clement of Alexandria
      "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to
      Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named
      Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows:
      `And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and
      baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy
      Spirit.'"
      - Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare.

      Justin Martyr
      "Justin...quotes a saying of Christ...as a proof of the necessity or
      regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic
      tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the
      triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the
      traditional text of Matthew 28:19." - Ency. of Religion and Ethics
      "In Justin Martyr, who wrote between a.d. 130 and 140, there is a
      passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew
      28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische
      Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text.
      The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258:

      `God hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some
      that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his
      Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive
      gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this
      Christ.'

      "The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation
      our of text was that they ignored the formula `baptizing them in the
      name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.' But the discovery of the
      Eusebian form of text removes the difficulty: and Justin is seen to
      have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius
      regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340." - Conybeare
      (Hibbert Journal)

      Macedonius
      "We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was
      writing, early in the third century. In the middle of that century
      Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in
      the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that
      the baptisms even of the heretics were valid, if the name of Jesus
      alone was invoked. (However, this decision did not prevent the popes
      of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church
      for its adhesion to the old use of invoking in one name). In the last
      half of the fourth century, the text `in the name of the Father, and
      of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle cry by the
      orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were
      called `pneumato-machi' or `fighters against the Holy Spirit',
      because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons
      as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son.
      They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament
      authorized such a coordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son.
      Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius." -
      Conybeare (Hibbert Journal)

      Eunomius
      "Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying
      out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the `Apostolic Canons' (no. 50) combat the
      shorter formula, thereby attesting to its use in certain quarters.
      The ordinance of the Apostolic Canon therefore runs:

      `If any bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one
      initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the
      Lord, let him be deposed.'
      "This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5:24), `for
      they baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ.'
      They accordingly used single immersion only." - Encyclopedia Biblia
      (Article on "Baptism")

      Aphraates
      "There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is
      Aphraates...who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites our text in a
      formal manner, as follows:
      `Make disciples of all the nations, and they shall believe in me'.
      "The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading `in my
      name'. But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its
      injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of
      Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation,
      but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is
      impossible." - Conybeare

      How the Manuscripts Were Changed

      The following quotations will show the ease with which scribes freely
      altered the manuscripts of the New Testament, so unlike the scribes
      and custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures who copied the holy
      writings with reverence and strict accuracy.

      These quotations will also show the early start of the practice of
      trine immersion at the time when the doctrine of the Trinity was
      being formulated, and how the New Testament writings were made to
      conform to traditional practice.
      Conybeare

      "In the case just examined (Matt. 28:19), it is to be noticed that
      not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the
      true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R. Gregory,
      one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us,

      `The Greek Manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often
      altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were
      familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.'
      (Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg 424).
      "These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the
      Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and
      interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of
      the text in a few cases, with the aid of patristic citations and
      ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been
      so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was
      necessary to emphasize this point, because Dr. Wescott and Hort used
      to aver that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changed having
      been made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite
      of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, J.
      Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four
      names, do not scruple to recognize the fact."
      While this is perfectly true, nevertheless, "there are a number of
      reasons why we can feel confident about the general reliability of
      our translations." - Peter Watkins, in an excellent article `Bridging
      the Gap' in The Christadelphian, January, 1962, pp. 4-8.

      Fraternal Visitor 1924, page 148
      "Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing
      manuscripts...if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less)
      corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in
      more than two thousand places. Eusebius therefore, is not without
      ground for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly
      arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than
      once." -Translation from Christadelphian Monatshefte.

      Whiston - in Second Letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p. 15.
      "We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and
      corruptions brought into the Scriptures...by the Athanasians, and
      relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case
      whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation
      or corruption, made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or
      Arians."

      Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Article on Baptism)
      "While trine immersion was thus an all but universal practice,
      Eunomius (circa 360) appears to have been the first to introduce
      (again) simple immersion `unto the death of Christ.' This practice
      was condemned on pain of degradation, by the Canon Apostolic 46 (al
      50). But it comes before us again about a century later in Spain; but
      then, curiously enough, we find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy
      in opposition to the practice of the Arians. These last kept to the
      use of trine immersion, but in such a way as to set forth their own
      doctrine of a gradation in the three Persons."

      Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - pp. 125-126
      "In the `Two Ways' of the Didache, the principal duties of the
      candidates for baptism and the method of administering it by triple
      immersion or infusion on the head are outlined. This triple immersion
      is also attested to by Tertullian (Adverses Prax 26)...The most
      elaborate form of the rite in modern Western usage is in the Roman
      Catholic Church."

      Catholic Encyclopedia - page 262
      "The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the
      Church...Its object, of course, to honor the three Persons of the
      Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred."

      Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics - Article on "Baptism"
      "If it be thought, as many critics think, that no manuscript
      represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is
      necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the
      influence of baptismal practice. It seems easier to believe that the
      traditional text was brought about by this influence working on
      the `Eusebian' text, than that the latter arose out of the former in
      spite of it."
      Conybeare - In the Hibbert Journal

      "The exclusive survival (of the traditional text of Matt. 28:19) in
      all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise...But
      in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the
      council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced
      as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices...The question of the
      inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been
      threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominant party could
      not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual
      affinities."
      Robert Roberts, in "Good Company" (Vol. iii, page 49)

      "Athanasius...met Flavian, the author of the Doxology, which has
      since been universal in Christendom: `Glory be to the Father, and to
      the Son, etc.' This was composed in opposition to the Arian
      Doxology: `Glory to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit'."

      Whiston, in Second Letter Concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719,
      page 17, wrote:
      "The Eusebians...sometimes named the very time when, the place where,
      and the person by whom they (the forms of doxology) were first
      introduced...Thus Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures
      us in `Photius' Extracts' that in a.d. 348 or thereabouts, Flavianus,
      Patriarch of Antioch, got a multitude of monks together, and did
      there first use this public doxology, `Glory be to the Father, and to
      the Son, and to the Holy Spirit'."

      And regarding the possibility that additions were made into scripture
      based on liturgical use, Hammond, in "Textual Criticism Applied to
      the N.T." (1890) page 23 wrote:

      "There are two or three insertions in the New Testament which have
      been supposed to have their origin in ecclesiastical usage. The words
      in question, being familiarly known in a particular connection, were
      perhaps noted in the margin of some copy, and thence became
      incorporated by the next transcriber; or a transcriber's own
      familiarity with the words may have led to to his inserting them.
      This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns the insertion of
      the doxology at the close of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6, which is
      lacking in most of the best authorities. Perhaps also Acts 8:37,
      containing the baptismal profession of faith, which is entirely
      lacking in the best authorities, found its way into the Latin text in
      this manner."

      Having reviewed the evidence of the manuscripts, the versions and now
      the patristic writings, you will by now have come to conclusion that
      in the early centuries some copies of Matthew did not contain the
      traditional triune name-phrase. Regardless of the opinions or
      positions taken by our commentators, we must at the very least admit
      that fact.

      In legal practice where copies of the same lost document vary,
      recourse is had to what is called "Internal Evidence." That is, a
      comparison with the rest of the text of the document that is not in
      dispute, in order to ascertain which of the variant readings is the
      more likely original.
      With both variants in mind, let us now turn to the scriptures
      themselves for our internal evidence.

      Internal Evidence

      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess 5:21
      In the above verse, the Greek word for "prove" is dokimazo, and it
      means, "to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing
      is genuine or not), to recognize as genuine after examination, to
      approve, deem worthy."
      In our efforts to ascertain which reading of Matthew 28:19 is
      original, we will submit both to ten "tests". In doing so, we shall
      be able in the end to recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious.

      1. The Test of Context
      Examining the context, we find that the traditional name-phrase lacks
      syntactic quality, that is, the true sense of the verse is hindered
      by a failure of the linguistic patterns to agree. If however, we read
      as follows, the whole context fits together and the tenor of the
      instruction is complete: (Matt. 28:18-20)
      "All power is given unto me...go therefore...make disciples in my
      name, teaching them...whatsoever I have commanded ...I am with you..."

      2. The Test of Frequency
      Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
      Holy Spirit/Ghost" used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once.
      Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? Yes, 17
      times actually, examples to be found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and
      41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23.

      3. The Test of Argument
      Is any argument in scripture based on the fact of a threefold name,
      or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever.
      Is any argument in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name
      of Jesus? Yes! This argument is made in 1 Cor. 1:13...

      "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized
      in the name of Paul?" (emphasis added)

      From this argument, when carefully analyzed, it appears that
      believers ought to be baptized in the name of the One who was
      crucified for them. The Father, in His amazing love, gave to us His
      beloved Son, who by the Spirit was raised to incorruptibility. But it
      is the Lord Jesus Himself who was crucified, and in His name,
      therefore, must believers be baptized in water.

      According to Dr. Thomas, in "Revealed Mystery" Atricle XLIV:
      "There is but one way for a believer of `the things concerning the
      Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ' to put Him on, or to be
      invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name.
      Baptism is for this specific purpose."

      "As for it's significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the
      death of Christ. It is the means of the believer's identification
      with the Lord's death." ( God's Way, pg. 190)

      Now the Father did not die, nor yet the Spirit. As the scripture
      says, "buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism," not with the Father, the
      Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Rom. 6:3-5)

      R. Roberts used this argument (The Nature of Baptism, page 13):
      "According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized
      into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the
      connecting link, the door of entrance, the `new and living way.' And
      thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in
      opposition to the apostolic declaration, that `there is none other
      name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given
      among men whereby we must be saved' (Acts 4:12)."

      This, of course, is the same argument as Paul's. Were ye baptized in
      the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
      or in any other name that displaces Christ from His position as
      the `connecting link,' and the only name for salvation?

      Based on this argument alone, we can confirm the genuine text of
      Matthew 28:19 to contain the phrase, "in my name."

      4. The Test of Analogy
      Is there anything in scripture analogous to baptism in the triune
      name? No.
      Is there anything analogous to baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! The
      Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Ghost, a
      promise that came according to Jesus `in His name.' (John 14:26) This
      is because Jesus is the `connecting link' in both water baptism and
      spirit baptism, evidenced by the following scripture quotations:

      "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
      away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
      if I depart, I will send him unto you.

      "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
      send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things
      to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 16:7 and
      14:26, See also John 7:39).
      "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the
      kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,
      both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

      Notice that they were baptized in response to the preaching of the
      name of Jesus Christ, not the titles "Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
      By analogy, we should therefore be baptized in Jesus' name, because
      it precedes and prepares us for the baptism of the Spirit, which is
      likewise given in His name. (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5)

      5. The Test of Consequence
      In being baptized, do we `put on' the name of the Father, Son and
      Holy Ghost? No.

      Do we put on the name of Jesus? Yes. When we are baptized in the name
      of Jesus Christ, according to all early Church baptisms recorded in
      scripture, were are quite literally being baptized `into' the name of
      Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:27 states:

      "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
      Christ."
      No mention is made in scripture of any result in baptism being
      related to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Every mention
      makes a clear connection with the person of Christ, and His atoning
      sacrifice on the cross.

      6. The Test of Practice
      Did the disciples, after receiving the `Great Commission' ever once
      baptize in the threefold name? Never!

      Did they baptize in the name of Jesus? Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16;
      10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.)

      The argument has often been made when defending triune immersion, "I
      would rather obey the command of Jesus, than to imitate the Acts of
      the Apostles." This kind of logic though, places the Apostles in
      disobedience, and makes all Apostolic baptisms void.

      If all of God's Word is inspired, and it is, then we would do well to
      give no greater heed to one verse over another, but rather take all
      of God's Word in context, and rightly apply it to our lives. Quite
      simply, the `red letter' portions of our Bibles (i.e., the words of
      Christ) are no more, and no less important than the rest.
      It is easier to believe that the disciples followed the parting
      instructions of our Lord, than to suggest that they were immediately
      disobedient to His command.

      7. The Test of Significance
      What significance is attributed in scripture to baptizing believers
      in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None.
      What significance is afforded to baptism in the name of Jesus? First,
      the scripture teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus as an act of
      repentance is for the remission (that is, forgiveness) of sins (Acts
      2:38).
      Second, baptism in His name alone is linked to the promise of the
      Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5).

      Third, baptism in the name of Jesus is likened to our identification
      and personalization of the death and burial of Christ. (Romans 6:1-4
      and Colossians 2:12).

      Fourth, being baptized into Christ is how we `put on' Christ
      (Galatians 3:27).
      Fifth, baptism in His name is called the `circumcision of Christ,'
      and reflects our `putting off' of the man of sin, thus becoming
      a `new creature in Christ Jesus.' (Col. 2:11-12, 2 Cor. 5:17).

      Baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the Incarnation, the
      authentic human life of Jesus, the death of the Son of God on the
      cross for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name.
      Baptism in the threefold name can be said only to express faith in
      the Trinitarian doctrine itself, and the man made creeds that support
      it.

      8. The Test of Parallel Accounts
      As God's providence would have it, Matthew 28 is not the sole record
      in the gospels of the `Great Commission' of our Lord. Luke also
      records this event with great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he writes
      Jesus speaking in the third person,
      "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
      name among all nations."

      This passage alone restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19, where
      Jesus speaks in the first person, "in my name."
      Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark likewise records a version of
      the `Great Commission,' using some of the same patterns of speech:
      "Go ye...all the world...preach the gospel...every
      creature ...baptized...in my name..." (Mark 16:15-18)
      Of course, it is not baptism that `in my name' here refers to, but
      the works that the disciples would do. Compared to Matthew, though,
      the similarity is striking, for neither is baptism explicitly
      mentioned there, but that disciples should be made, "in my name."

      9. The Test of Complimentary Citation
      While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of the
      triune name-phrase, there is a striking resemblance between Matthew
      28:18-20 (with the correction) and Romans 1:4-5. The former contains
      the Commission of Christ to His Apostles, while the latter is Paul's
      understanding and acceptance of his own commission as an apostle.
      Consider the following similarities:

      Matthew 28:18-20
      "all power is given unto me"
      "Go ye" "teaching them to observe"
      "all nations" "in my name"

      Romans 1:4-5
      "the Son of God with power"
      "received...apostleship"
      "for obedience to the faith"
      "all nations"
      "for his name"

      10. The Test of Principle
      It is written: "whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name
      of the Lord Jesus..." (Colossians 3:17).

      In this principle laid down by Paul, the implication is clear. The
      word "whatsoever" is all inclusive, and certainly therefore includes
      baptism, which is a rite involving both word and deed.

      The traditional reading of Matthew containing the threefold name is
      clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter
      phrase is. This proves which of the two readings is the spurious one.
      God's Word does not contradict, it compliments and completes.

      Paul not only enunciated this principle, he also applied it
      specifically in the context of baptism. In Acts 19:1-5 we find
      disciples of John who had been baptized under his ministry. Like
      baptism in Jesus' name, John's baptism was one of repentance for the
      remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38). John preached with his
      baptism that One would come after him, who would `take away the sins
      of the world' and "baptize with the Holy Ghost.'

      Paul introduced these disciples to Jesus, and applying the above
      principle re-baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus.

      And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings in Matt.
      28:19, we find strong support for the phrase "in my name."

      Other Sources

      Sufficient evidence has been produced to enable the reader to decide
      whether or not the triune-name in Matt. 28:19 is genuine. The
      following quotations are presented by way of interest, and should not
      be used in the arena of textual criticism thus far employed.

      Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
      "The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual
      Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus
      distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 (in the traditional
      form) represents the exact words of Christ." - Article: Baptism;
      Early Christian.

      Dr. Peake - Bible Commentary, page 723
      "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal
      expansion. Instead of the words `baptizing them in the name of the
      Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' we should probably
      read simply, `into my name'."

      F. Whiteley in `The Testimony' (Oct. 1959, pg 351. `Back to Babylon)
      "There is the `triune' baptismal formula, which may prove a very
      broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but...we leave it for
      separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one
      cannot find one single instance, in Acts or Epistles, of the words
      ever being used at any of the main baptisms recorded, notwithstanding
      Christ's (seemingly) explicit command at the end of Matthew's Gospel."

      Williams R.R. - Theological Workbook of the Bible, page 29
      "The command to baptize in Matt. 28:19 is thought to show the
      influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism.
      Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this
      Trinitarian conception with baptism suggests that baptism itself was
      felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference."

      Dean Stanley - `Christian Institutions'
      "Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now
      everywhere administered in the threefold name...soon superseded the
      simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only."

      E.K. in the Fraternal Visitor - Article: `The Question of the Trinity
      and Matt. 28:19." 1924, pg 147-151, from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
      "The striking contrast and the illogical internal incoherence of the
      passage...lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the
      interests of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of
      certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was
      certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a
      decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage."

      Dr. Robert Young
      In his `Literal Translation of the Bible', Young places the triune
      name in Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be
      of doubtful authenticity.

      James Martineau - `Seat of Authority'
      "The very account which tells us that at last, after His
      resurrection, He commissioned His disciples to go and baptize among
      all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language
      of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical
      editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself."

      Black's Bible Dictionary
      "The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some
      reverent Christian mind."

      Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
      "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the
      triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that
      this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a
      later addition."

      Professor Harnack - `History of Dogma' (German Edition)

      Professor Harnack dismisses the text almost contemptuously as
      being `no word of the Lord'."

      F. Whiteley in `The Testimony,' footnotes to Article: Baptism, 1958.
      "Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that
      the apostles and epistles never once employ the triune name of Matt.
      28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing the idea of the Trinity was being
      resisted by the Church in the fourth century, admits (e.g.
      Peake) `the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late
      doctrinal expansion', but still prior to our oldest yet known
      manuscripts (Fourth Century). It's sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a
      proven interpolation. Eusebius (a.d. 264-340) denounces the triune
      form as spurious, Matthew's actual writing having been baptizing
      them `in my name'."

      Is It Important?

      Is it important that we amend the text of Matthew 28:19? The man
      whose standard of judgment is his own ideas will answer in the
      negative. But those who acknowledge that God's thoughts are not our
      thoughts will carefully consider the matter in light of scripture,
      and remember that in the matter of divinely appointed symbolic
      actions, the details are of great importance. Matthew 28:19 has to do
      with such a symbolic action. For example:

      a) Cain's offering lacked blood and was rejected.
      b) The man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath forfeited his life.
      c) Uzzah died when he touched the Ark of the Covenant.

      Certainly these acts of disobedience were judged according to their
      error, but perhaps also God was displeased because they marred the
      portrait-in-type of the Son of His Love, as to a) the atonement by
      blood, b) His millennial rest, and c) His chosen ones.

      Every symbolic action required by God has not only one or more
      significance, but in fact is the actual cause of the very real end-
      effect. Consider the following cause-and-effect examples:

      1) When Joshua pointed his spear there was victory (Josh. 8:18).
      2) Only three victories were given to Joash when he struck the ground
      but thrice (2 Kings 13:19-25).
      3) The Passover Lamb (or kid) had to be without blemish (even as was
      Christ), if the household was to be protected from the Death Angel
      (Exod. 12:5).
      Nothing in God's ritual is without meaning or result. When He speaks,
      it is done! Christ called Lazarus, and Lazarus came forth! In matters
      of ritual, such as Baptism and the Breaking of Bread, we are dealing
      with God's ritual, not man's.
      All man-made rituals, no matter how lofty their motivation, when they
      deviate from and therefore pervert the Word of God, are nothing more
      than empty traditions that `make the Word of God of none effect'
      (Mark 7:13). Obedience to God's commands, however, will always effect
      the result for which they are given.
      In the matter of establishing the original text of Matthew 28:19, it
      is indeed important to settle what is genuine, and what is spurious,
      so that we may properly obey our Lord's command. After all, that is
      the purport of our introductory text in Deut. 4:2, "Ye shall not
      add...neither ...diminish ought...that ye may keep the
      commandments'." When we are obedient to the true command of our Lord,
      we can expect the promised, and even eternal effect.
      Believers were taught in James 5 (verse 14) to anoint the sick with
      oil in the name of the Lord. The result would be that the Lord would
      raise him up. When two or three gather together in His name, the
      result is that He is there in the midst of them. As our evidence
      reveals, Jesus commanded to go and make disciples in His name. As a
      result, He would be with them to the end, even to the end of the age.

      Anything we do in His name directly involves Him. No wonder then that
      Paul so clearly charged those believers in Colosse:
      "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord
      Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him!"

      Addendum

      1. The Light is Dawning
      The British and Foreign Bible Society published in 1960 a Greek
      Testament, and at Matthew 28:19 the phrase `en tO onomati mou' (`in
      my name') is given as an alternate reading, Eusebius being cited as
      the authority.

      The Jerusalem Bible 1966 (a Roman Catholic production) has this
      footnote to Matt. 28:19, "It may be that this formula...is a
      reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive
      community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing in the
      name of Jesus."

      2. But Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 Say Nothing of Baptism!
      That is true. They speak only of "making disciples of all nations"
      and "repentance and remission of sins." However, in establishing the
      original text of Matthew 28:19 to contain simply "in my name," we
      have essentially eliminated all support for baptizing "in the name of
      the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
      Because of this far reaching implication, we were forced to examine
      the internal evidence with regards to baptism, in order to find any
      other support for the traditional reading, as the triune formula that
      was added to Matt. 28:19 is connected with baptism.

      Though baptism is not specifically mentioned in Matt. 28:19 or Luke
      24:47, it can be inferred because of the following two points:
      1. In Matthew, the command is to "make disciples in my name."
      To "make a disciple" of necessity includes baptism in the conversion
      process (Mark 16:15-16, John 3:3-5), and the entire process is under
      the umbrella of the injunction to do so "in His name."
      2. In Luke, "repentance and remission of sins" would be preached "in
      His name." By testimony of other scriptures (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38), it
      is clear that remission of sins comes through baptism preceded by
      repentance. Here Jesus enjoins both to being preached "in His name."

      3. The Evidence of Eusebius

      Jerome makes an interesting statement. (He was born a.d. 331 and died
      in 420, and wrote many exegetical and controversial treatises and
      letters, as well as the renowned Latin Vulgate translation of the
      Scriptures.) His interesting statement is as follows (from the
      Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers):
      "Matthew, who is also Levi...composed a gospel...in the Hebrew
      language and characters...Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved
      to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so
      diligently collected."
      Now Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 a.d.) inherited from that Pamphilus
      (who died in a.d. 310) that famous Library, a library which was
      commenced by Origen (185-254 a.d.).

      The wording of that statement by Jerome seems to mean that the
      original Manuscript of Matthew was still to be seen in the Library at
      Caesarea. Or it could mean an early copy of Matthew's Hebrew writing.
      But the phraseology of Jerome appears to indicate the actual
      Manuscript written by Matthew himself.

      4. The Mental Reservations of Eusebius

      On page 14 of this book, last paragraph, mention is made of the fact
      that after the Council of Nicaea Eusebius three times used the triune
      name-phrase in writing. The following three extracts shed light on
      this strange affair:

      1. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature; Eusebius
      "At the Council of Nicaea (a.d. 325) Eusebius took a leading
      part...He occupied the first seat to the emperor's right, and deliver-
      ed the opening address to Constantine when he took his seat in the
      council chamber...Eusebius himself has left us an account of his
      doings with regard to the main object of the council in a letter of
      explanation to his church at Caesarea...This letter...is written to
      the Caesareans to explain that he would resist to the last any vital
      change in the traditional creed of his church, but had subscribed to
      these alterations, when assured of their innocence, to avoid
      appearing contentious."

      2. Wallace Hadrill, in `Eusebius of Caesarea,' (1960)
      "Our concern here is only with Nicaea as it affected Eusebius...his
      own account of the matter is transmitted to us...in the letter he
      addressed to his diocese an explanation of his actions at the
      Council, for with some misgiving he had signed the document bearing
      the revised text of the creed he had presented...But being satisfied
      that the creed did not imply the opposite Sabellian pitfall ...he
      signed the document."

      3. William Bright in his Preface to Burton's `Text of Eusebius
      Ecclesiastical History': "The Nicene Council followed, in the summer
      of a.d. 325. Eusebius, of course, attended and was profoundly
      impressed by the sight of that majestic gathering...He occupied a
      distinguished position in the Council; he was its spokesman in
      welcoming the Emperor...On the next day, as if yielding to those
      representations, and moved by the express opinion of Constantine, he
      signed the Creed, and even accepted the anathematism appended to it;
      but did so, as we gather from his own statement, by dint of evasive
      glosses which he certainly could not have announced at that time.
      While then he verbally capitulated in the doctrinal decisions of the
      Nicene Council...he did so reluctantly, under pressure, and in senses
      of his own...He knew that he would be thought to have compromised his
      convictions, and therefore wrote his account of the transaction to
      the people of his diocese, and, as Athanasius expresses it `excluded
      himself in his own way'."

      5. Second Century Mutilations of the Sacred Text

      In the book mention is made of the fact that textual critics have
      been able to reproduce the Sacred Text substantially correct as it
      existed in the second or third century.

      As was pointed out on page 7, "there is every reason to believe that
      the grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered in
      already in the second century...If our touchstone only reveals to us
      texts that are ancient, we cannot hope to obtain for our result
      anything but an ancient text. What we wish however, is not merely an
      ancient, but the true text." The following three excerpts are
      interesting as being in accordance with that pronouncement:

      1. The Authentic New Testament was translated by Dr. Hugh J.
      Schonfield, and published in 1962. The Introduction contains the
      following:
      "It may be accepted with confidence that we have at command the New
      Testament substantially as the writings contained in it would be read
      within a century of their composition."
      It is in that century, as has been pointed out, that the `very
      grossest textual errors' deformed the Sacred Text.

      2. The S.P.C.K. published in 1964 Volume One of the Clarified New
      Testament. At Matthew 28:19, the comment reads, "One would expect
      this name to be that of Jesus and it is surprising to find the text
      continuing with `the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' which
      are no names at all. The suspicion that this is not what Matthew
      originally wrote naturally arises. In `Father, Son and Holy Ghost' we
      have the Trinitarian formula...which was associated with Christian
      Baptism in the second century, as evidenced in the Didache, chapter
      seven."

      3. F.C. Kenyon, in The Text of the Greek Bible, pages 241-242
      "At the first each book had its single original text, which it is now
      the object of criticism to recover, but in the first two centuries
      this original Greek text disappeared under a mass of variants,
      created by errors, by conscious alterations, and by attempts to
      remedy the uncertainties thus created."

      6. The Source of the Error
      The earliest reference to the triune name-phrase is found in the
      Didache. The Didache is a collection of fragments of writings from
      five or more documents. They were originally written, it is thought
      between a.d. 80 and 160. Although we now have only 99 verses, those
      verses contain the seeds of ma
      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.