The authenticity of Matthew 28:19

[unkleE]

The doctrine of the Trinity is generally believed by christians, although the word isn't mentioned in the NT. The closest to a statement of the doctrine in Matt 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

I have recently come across claims that this wording was an addition made somewhat later, when the trinitarian doctrine was being argued over, and that no texts dated before the fourth century contain this wording - see for example this website. I have never studied this matter much, because it has never concerned me - I hold the trinitarian doctrine as probably the best explanation of a difficult matter, but not doctrine essential to being a christian.

Does anyone know if this scepticism is generally supported by mainstream NT scholars?

Thanks.

[hawkinthesnow]

There is, as far as I am aware, no evidence that this verse was added in the fourth century. I have yet to discover a Bible scholar who thinks it is an interpolation. In that respect, they are not sceptical.

However, that does not necessarily mean that they all believe that the "Great Commission" as it is called, actually happened. It is more likely to represent Matthew's own understanding of what the Christian mission should be.

If Jesus did indeed commission his disciples as described, it raises problems. For instance, Jesus here tells his disciples to go and baptise people of all nations. If this was the case, why was this an issue that actually split the church?

Secondly, Jesus tells his disciples to baptise "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Why does Acts tell us then that early converts were baptised only in the name of Jesus?

I think that arguments about the Trinity based on proof texts like this are a waste of time frankly. We read passages like this in the light of 2000 years of theological dispute, and tend to read more into these verses than is warranted. Was Matthew saying that Jesus was coequal and coeternal with the Father, of one substance? I think not. In this whole passage, Matthew is reiterating some of the themes he had touched on earlier. In chapter 3 verses 19 to 17 we have a description of Jesus own baptism, which involved the Spirit of God descending on the Son, (Jesus), and the voice of the Father coming from heaven.

I think that Matthew is saying that the followers of Jesus have no less authority in carrying on Jesus mission than Jesus did in starting it.

Hope this helps.

[bret]

I believe that this was in the original manuscript, because this commission was also recorded in the Gospel of Mark 16:15 and was important enough that Christ restated again at His ascension Acts 1:8
As to the wording of the Trinity, I believe this is further evidence of the distinct individuals in the Trinity. They are not different manifestations of the same being. They are separate beings as illustrated at the baptism of Jesus. After His baptism the Father's voice was heard from heaven "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". If Jesus was his Father, who's voice was it? Was Jesus a ventriloquist?
Also when Jesus prayed, who did he pray to, Himself?
A study of early Christianity sheds light on the slow change in Theology during the third century. By the time of the 4th century most of the leaders of the Christian churches believed or were forced to believe in the creed that was adopted at the Nicenian council. The doctrine of the trinity has been polluted.
My experience with humanity, is that most people believe that Jesus and His Father are separate beings, even though their church teaches them otherwise, and most priests or pastors have struggled with this doctrine at sometime in their life.
The nature of God is of paramount importance, and is not as complicated as is erroneously believed.
If you want to test what I have wrote to be true, then prior to reading John chapter 17 , I would ask you to humble yourself, and in prayer ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ to bless you that you might have the Holy Ghost manifest truth to you. Then with sincere intent read the entire chapter of John 17 and then think about Jesus, the Savior of the world being in the garden of Gethsemane, just prior to his crucifixion, praying for his disciples. Reread the chapter and ask yourself about the relationship of the Father and the Son and you. Prayfully study this and the truth will be made manifest to you.

[Mike D]

Hi bret and welcome,

I'm not convinced that the Trinity is as simple as you say, to be honest. I'm not a theologian and I'm not a historian, but it seems to me that the early church had to struggle with 2 apparently opposing ideas:

1. There is only one God, the legacy of Judaism

2. Jesus appeared to be God incarnate

The doctrine of the Trinity grew out of this, a way not to explain this apparent discrepancy, but just to describe it.

I'm not sure that it is possible to say 'the Trinity are distinct individuals' and still to hold to 1., that there is only one God. It feels like it imputes to the different personae a separation that the early church, for good reason, avoided.

I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it.

Mike

[bjorn]

Mike, remeber that the legacy oif Judaism also involved "the Wisdom" (part taker in Creation)and "the Spirit" concepts, which in the second temple period led to a concept of God not quite as singular as Allah.

[Mike D]

Bjorn,

Yes, reasonable point, there were pointers towards the concept of the Trinity in Judaism. But would "the Wisdom" or "the Spirit" have been seen by Jews of this period as persons, or as aspects (if you see the distinction I am trying to draw)?

It seems to me (though I may be mistaken) that the idea of the Trinity is revealed progressively, so that Judaism has the idea of a single God who reveals himself in different aspects, but does not have the 'full blown' Christian doctrine of one God in three Persons. And Christianity, at least orthodox Christianity, has never (at least as far as I know, but I could be wrong) gone as far as 'three distinct individuals'.

Mike

[rfmoo]

The Nicene Creed is quite explicit about the existence of three persons in one God. As to comprehensibility by the human intellect, no it isn't, as the Church has always held, and so what? God isn't comprehensible by the human intellect either.

It is a head scratcher, all right, but I have never imagined that I could get my mind around infinite mysteries.

Best,

Richard Moorton

[bjorn]

Mike.

My point was, as you seem to understand, not that a fullblown triniitarian concept was present in second temple Judaism, it was just to remind you that Judaism had concepts that could lead more easy to a trinitarian view than Islam ever has had.

[bret]

Hello everyone,
I agree with Mike that the concept of the Trinity is not simple and clear cut in a historical and biblical context; however, I think 3rd century Christendom, to current time, makes its much more complex than it really should be. The major hurdle is the monotheistic of Judaism. How do you justify 2 or 3 Gods when we are told by God that their is but one God and we are commanded to worship Him and only Him.

First I believe that Yahweh (God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is Jesus before "being made flesh". It is evidenced in the NT that Jesus is the Creator of this earth and that he existed prior to birth. He stated that he was I AM and Yahweh to the Jews. He fulfills Messianic prophesy (Isaiah & Zechariah) that Yahweh would suffer by the hands of His people. I believe he was the law giver that dispensed a preparatory law to Moses out of the burning bush.

I recognize there is confusion in some Messianic prophesy if the Messiah would be Yahweh or someone else. Also their is confusion in some Old Testament scriptures as to Yahweh being Father God. I justify the confusion by realizing that the current rendering of our Old Testament has gone through many copies of copies and various translations. If we had the original Torah and prophets I do believe we would have a much clearer understanding.

Their is also some confusion as to if Elohim is Yahweh, Father God or the Father and the Son (Gods). Elohim is a name of God which means Gods (plural). I understand how current Judaism tries to explain this (Majesty or Greatness), but I do not know if Moses were here if he would make the same explanation.

I hope that I am not just rambling, this debate was earnestly debated during the 3rd and 4th centuries, and I believe the winners got it wrong. Logic and thoughtful reading of the NT does not support the Trinity as one God with different manifestations. I understand the background for the confusion, but the creed created more confusion in the hearts and minds of people for the past 1700 years.

And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26)
And Yahweh said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. (Gen 3:22)

This sounds like a collective group, that is working together in oneness. It’s not really polytheistic, maybe a little henotheistic. But definitely like John Chapter 17. I have dozens of other references and logical points to make on this subject, maybe in a later post since this is getting to long and it is late here.

At last, let me conclude, by saying that an intellectual and rational approach to the gospel is fascinating; however, it is what we feel that truly counts. A spiritual approach is much more important. The Lord’s Spirit is upon the earth and will guide us to truth if we will humble our self and pray with real intent. It usually does not come quickly, but it does come if we truly are seeking Him.

[rfmoo]

Dear Bret,

You are in disagreement with every major theologian (e.g. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Karl Barth, etc. etc.) and Christian biblical scholar that I know anything about. If we believe that there is a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as you seem to at times, though at other times not), and if we agree with the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God," then the mystery of the Christian Trinity necessarily ensues.

As for relying on feelings to guide us, feelings differ wildly, and when and as they do, how do we adjudicate between them? We need both faith and reason. I read just today that Benedict XVI has said "Pure faith becomes fideism (i.e. blind faith no matter what), and Pure reason becomes nihilism). This is certainly true, and the two working in concert in the Christian tradition has discerned the Trinity in the scriptures. When I read John 17 (in Greek) prayerfully, I feel that nothing there is inconsistent with the Trinity and much that fortifies it (i.e. the identity of yet distinction between the Father and Son). If your feelings are otherwise, do what you must. The traditions of the Church, dating back arguably to the Apostle's Creed and the Gospels, are sufficient for me.

Best,

Richard Moorton