HOME | ARTICLES | BIBLES | LINKS | ~ the HeReTiC ~

Matthew 28:19 : is it an Interpolation?

~ scriptures are from the Hebraic Roots Bible, and HBR Bible Notes in italics.

Joh 1:29 On the morrow, John saw Yahshua coming toward him and said, Behold! The Lamb of Elohim†, who takes away the sin of the world!

Joh 3:16-18 For YAHWEH so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life†.
For YAHWEH did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might have life through Him.
The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of YAHWEH†.

Scriptures - Matthew 28:19-20
Mat 28:19 Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name† of the Father and of the Son,
Mat 28:20 and the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you.
And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.

(KJV) Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 

The MSS Evidence
It needs to be stated that we simply do not have any extant manuscript (MS) which contains all of Matthew dating prior to the fourth century.
Nor do we find any MS prior to this time that contains Matthew 28.
For instance, the listing of the papyri as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament (2nd Edition, 1995, pp. 96-103) gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri.
In P 37 Matthew 26:52 seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the papyri.
Philip Comfort and David Barrett, in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (1999, pp. 6 & 13) mention some of the MSS of Matthew. On page 6 they present a list of the various verses from Matthew (with Matthew also ending at 26:52), and on page 13, they say that they were providing only those manuscripts which, "dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)."

A list of Papyri from the second to fourth centuries that contain Matthew:
P 64, c. 200 – Matt. 3, 5, 26
P.104/ P Oxy. (Oxyrhynchus Papyri) 4404, late 2nd Cent. – Matt. 21
P 77/ P.Oxy. 2683, 2nd-3rd Cent. – Matt 23
P 103/ P.Oxy. 4403, 2nd- 3rd Cent. – Matt. 13-14
P 1/ P Oxy., 3rd Cent. – Matt. 1
P 101/ P Oxy. 4401, 3rd Cent. – Matt. 3-4
P 70/ P Oxy. 2384, 3rd Cent. – Matt 2-3, 11-12, 24
P 45, 3rd Cent. - Matt. 20-21, 25 P 53, 3rd Cent. - Matt. 26
P 102/ P Oxy. 4402, 3rd– 4th Cent. – Matt. 4
P 37, 3rd-4th – Matt. 26
P 71/ P Oxy. 2385, 4th Cent. – Matt 19
P 62, 4th Cent. - Matt. 11 P 86, 4th Cent. – Matt. 5
P 35, 4th Cent.(?) – Matt. 25 P 25, late 4th Cent. – Matt. 18-19
P 19/P Oxy. 1170, 4th-5th Cent. – Matt. 10-11
P 21/P Oxy. 1227, 4th-5th Cent.- Matt. 12 (Source)

Thus, we do not find any MS of Matthew which is complete or that contains chapter 28 prior to the fourth century.
Q: In Matt, what are the manuscript variations with the Textus Receptus, the basis for the KJV?

A: Jay P. Green, Sr. in the Interlinear Bible records variations in approximately 183 words between the Textus Receptus and the majority text.
These are in 135 places. In addition, he also records approximately 28 words (20 places) of alternates.

The Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism was always in the name of the one person of the Master Yahshua Messiah"

The New Testament Scriptures
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you in the name of Yahshua YAHWEH† for the forgiveness of sins, that you may receive the gift of the Spirit of Holiness.
[Baptism is to be performed in His name for the remission of sins because "...he had by himself purged our sins..." (Hebrews 1:3)].

Act 8:16 For it was not upon any one of them yet, but they were only being baptized in the name of the Master Yahshua.
Act 8:17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of our Master Yahshua the Messiah. Then they asked him to remain some days†.

Act 19:5 And hearing, they were baptized into the name of the Master Yahshua.
Act 19:6 And Paul laying hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in different languages and prophesied.

Act 22:16 And now what do you intend? Rising up, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of YAHWEH.

1Co 1:12-15 But I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas and I of Messiah.
Has Messiah been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
I give thanks to Elohim that I did not baptize any one of you, except Crispus and Gaius, so that no man could say that I baptized in my own name.

Rom 6:3 Or are you ignorant that all who were baptized into Messiah Yahshua were baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore, we were buried with Him through baptism† into death that as Messiah was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so also we should walk in newness of life.

Gal 3:27 For as many as were baptized into Messiah, you put† on Messiah.

Other Sources
The True Nature of Baptism, p. 13
"According to truine-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 (other than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved".

Britanica Encyclopedia.
The baptism formula was changed from the NAME of JESUS CHRIST to the words FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST by the Catholic Church in the second century. (11th edition, volume 3, page 365-366)

Catholic Encyclopedia p262.
Catholic writers state that the last part of Matthew 28:19 was an ecclesiastical rite, added as a ‘baptismal formula’. “Its object is, of course, to honor the three persons of the holy trinity in whose name it is conferred”.

Catholic Encylopedia, 1913 edition, volume 2. Page 263
Justin Martyr change Mathew 28:19 in second century .

Codex Alexandrinus Manuscript
In Codex Alexandrinus Manuscript it states, ““Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations in my name” this is the exact true spoken word of Christ in Mat.28:19. The disciples heard this command and they went and baptized in Jesus Christ name. [[Act 2:38,Act 8:16, Act 19:5, 1 cor 12:13,Rom 6:3,Gal 3:27]

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 380,
reveals that Justin Martyr, another church father, was also possibly ignorant of the present form of Matthew 28:19."Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Chr-st as a proof of the necessity of 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."

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

Peake's Bible Commentary, page 722, 1926
“The command to baptise into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words “baptizing” … Spirit we should probably read simply “into my name”

Abingdon Bible Commentary
(note Eusebius was a 4th century Christian historian)
“Eusebius quotes this verse with the words “into my name,” instead of the Trinitarian formula, which represents the earliest baptismal formula. The baptismal rite of the early church must ultimately rest on a explicit command of Christ” ( page 995, 1929)

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture." "The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61.Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed." page 435. The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states: "It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

Author of Derebaptismate.
"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" (De Rebaptismate 6.7 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p.352).

Origen.
"In Origin's works as preserved in Greek, the first part of the verse is thrice adduced, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations;' and that in itself suggests that his text has been censured, and words which followed, 'in my name,' struck out" (Conybeare)

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 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 the 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 pneumao-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 of the N.T. authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius" --F.C. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, page 107).

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 its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of Canon Apostolic 50 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" Ency. Biblica (Art. Baptism).

Karl Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology – A concise Sacramentum Mundi, page 1755, 1975
“Since revelation and salvation come in historical form, it cannot be expected that the Trinity of God should have been explicitly revealed in the OT.” On the same page Rahner also said (note that 'ipsissima verba' is Latin for 'the very words') “There is no systematic doctrine of the“immanent” trinity in the NT. The nearest to such a proposition is the baptismal formula of Mt 28:19, though it must be noted that modern exegesis does not count this saying among the ipsissima verba of Jesus.”

Internal evidence tests.... to decide which is the true reading.
One Test is that of the CONTEXT
Examining the context, we find that in the AV the sense of the passage is hindered, but if we read as under, the whole context fits together and the tenor of the instruction is complete: "All power is given unto ME ... go therefore... baptizing in MY name, teaching them... whatsoever I have commanded... I am with you..."

Another Test is that of FREQUENCY
Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" used elsewhere in Scripture?
NOT ONCE!

Did Yahshua use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? YES! 17 times!
Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5 Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17 Luke 9:48; 21:8 John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26, etc..

Another Test is that of ARGUMENT
Is any argument is Scripture based on the fact of the threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatever!
Is any argument in Scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Yahshua? Yes!

This is the argument in 1 Cor. 1:13: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
From this argument, if carefully analyzed, it will appear that believers ought to be baptized in the name of that One who was crucified for them.

The Father,in His amazing love, gave us His beloved Son, who by the Spirit was raised to incorruptibility, but it is the Lord Himself who was crucified, and in HIS name, therefore, must believers be baptized in water. "There is none other name under heaven" _no other name or names_ "given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12. "As for its 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, p190].

Now the Father did not die, nor did the Spirit. "Buried with him" (not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) Rom. 6:3-5.

Another Test is that of ANALOGY
Is there anything in Scripture analogous to baptism in the Trine name? NO!
Is there anything analogous to baptism in the name of Jesus? YES!

The Father sent the Holy Spirit and baptized the waiting disciples with the Spirit in the name of Yahshua. John 14:26.

There is a reason for this. The Holy Spirit is the promise (Acts 2:33) which Yahshua received on ascending to the Father and only those who were in the corporate body of Yahshua, the Ecclesia, which is His Body-only those could receive the Gift, and only because they were in that one Body.

The Master Yahshua Messiah is the "connecting link" both for baptism in water and for baptism in spirit" [John 3:5].

Another Test is that of CONSEQUENCE
In being baptized, do we put on the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? NO!
Do we put on the name of Yahshua? YES

Dr. Thomas wrote: "Believers of the Gospel Jesus preached are justified by faith through HIS name; that is, their Abrahamic faith and disposition are counted to them for repentance and the remission of sins, in the act of putting on the name of Jesus, the Christ" [Revealed Mystery, Art. XLIII].

Another Test is that of PRACTICE
Did the Disciples afterwards baptize in the threefold name? NEVER!
Did they baptize in the name of Yahshua? ALWAYS! Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, etc..

Another Test is that of SIMILARITY OF ACTION
Baptism is a symbolic rite. The only other symbolic rite of the Ecclesia isthat of breaking bread. The latter is the Communion of those who have experienced the former: and noneelse. This is the Lord's supper, not that of the trinity! (My body, My blood)

Another Test is that of SIGNIFICANCE
One significance involved is that of the forgiveness of sins.
John did "preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

Yahshua had no sins to be remitted. Neither had he whereof to repent. When a man brought a lamb to the priest, he laid his hands upon the lamb, and the lamb was slain, and so the man received a remission of his sins. Without the laying on of hands the sin could not have been transferred to the lamb.

This is the significance of the baptism of Yahshua by John. When we were baptized (as when John's disciples were baptized), our sins were loosed, remitted,washed away, and we arose sinless. The Messiah entered the water of baptism to take upon himself those very sins. He entered sinless and emerged bearing the sins of the whole world!

How do we know?
It was revealed to John, who exclaimed. "Behold the Lamb of Elohim which taketh away the sins of the world" [John 1:29].

It was Yahshua alone (and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who was baptized,and became the Lamb of Elohim to take away the sins.
So that the significance here outlined requires the phrase in Matt. 28:19 to be "in my name."

Another Test is that of PARRALLEL ACCOUNTS
Now it happens that Matthew was not alone in recording the words of Jesus before his ascension.
Let us compare the parallel accounts of Luke 24:46-47:who writes in the third person:

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS NAME among all nations."

This passage therefore restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19-"in my name." Futher more, the last twelve verses of Mark record the last discourse of Yahshua before his ascension. If these are to be regarded as the inspired writing of Mark himself, then we have yet another witness to the correct text, for Mark, after using similar words to Matthew:-- "go ye ...all the world ...preach ....Every creature...baptize..." includes not the truine name but the phrase--"in my name." ~

Another Test is that of PRINCIPLE
It is written Col 3:17 And everything, whatever you do in word or in work,
do all things in the name of our Master Yahshua, giving thanks to YAHWEH the Father through Him.

Now here is a principle laid down, and the comprehensive word "whatsoever" certainly includes baptism, which is a rite involving both word and deed. Now of the alternative readings of Matthew 28:19, the threefold name is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter phrase is.

This item of Internal Evidence, therefore, proves which of the two variant readings is the spurious one.
That this is correct, is proved by other Scripture. It was Paul who enunciated the Principle. Did it, in his opinion, include baptism?

Act 19:3-5 supplies the answer. The baptism of John, like the Baptism of Yahshua (then and now), was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar 1:4, Act 2:38-39. And John preached also the coming of the Messiah who should baptize with the Holy Spirit.
The difference between the baptism of John and baptism after Pentecost is that the latter was in the name of Yahshua.

NO OTHER DIFFERENCE IS SHOWN IN SCRIPTURE.
Now it is written of the disciples at Ephesus that although they had been baptized unto John's baptism,
they were later baptized again, in the presence of Paul, but "in the name of the Messiah, Yahshua" Act 19:3-5.

This test provides a doubly-strong proof of the authenticity of the phrase " in my name " for Matthew 28:19.

Return to top

<º///><