In the book "The Trinity" by Woodrow Whidden, Ph. D., Jerry Moon, Ph. D., and
John W. Reese (pursuing a Ph. D) published by Review and Herald in 2002 (which I
had for almost two years now when I purchased it in April of 2002 during the
Laity Convention in Orlando, FL), they wrote in the first chapter titled "The
Strongest Biblical Evidence For The Trinity", p32.:
"Probably the strongest clues to such a divine triunity occur in the famous
gospel commission that Jesus gave the church in its baptismal formula: "Go
therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19)."
Let the reader decide for themselves based on the evidence presented here
whether the current rendition of Matthew 28:19 is really the infallible word of
God or is a man-made addition to the infallible word of God. We are all in
agreement that all [authentic] scripture is infallible.
May God be glorified and may the reader submit to the authority of the authentic
scriptures alone, forsaking human teachings and traditions of men,
Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!
What Did Matthew Actually Write, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," OR "Go ye, and make disciples of all the
nations IN MY NAME"?
This article is based on 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 ". The author was a
minister, presumably Protestant. He signed his work simply as A. Ploughman. He
lived in Birmingham, England. The author had not encountered anything dealing
with the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, during his 50 years of Biblical study
except from out of print articles, books and encyclopaedias. I would have never
considered reviewing this information except for the fact that a trusted friend
was quite zealous about the importance of the conclusions reached. In this
article, only the secular historical quotations have been retained as written
from Ploughman's research.
Questioning the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not a matter of determining how
easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of established doctrinal
views. Rather, it is a matter of discovering the very thoughts of our God,
remembering that His truth, and not our traditions, is eternal.
The information presented is extremely relevant to our faith. The amount of
information supporting the conclusions presented may seem overwhelming, but for
the serious seeker of truth, the search is well worth effort. I hope that you
will allow the facts contained in this article to stir you into action. If you
discover that you have not been baptized into the name of the true God, and have
knowingly accepted a substitute, how would God respond?
However, it must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were
written in the first, second or even the third centuries. There is a gap of
over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our
earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the
Catholic Church to evolve into what the "early church fathers" wanted it to
No single early manuscript is free from textual error. Some have unique errors;
other manuscripts were copied extensively and have the same errors. Again, our
aim is to examine all of the evidence and determine as closely as possible what
the original words were.
Considering the fact that all of the scriptures from Genesis thru Malachi make
no reference to a Trinitarian God, and that from Mark thru Revelation we also
find no evidence for a Trinity, we must consider the possibility that all the
existing manuscripts may have one or more textual errors in common.
According to the Biblical historian 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.
More on these changes will be addressed later. Another writer said:
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.
By proving how honest a text is rather than strictly how old it is provides us
with a text which has content that is truly ancient. When we verify that a text
is older than the fourth century, that it was current in the third or better
still the second century, we still cannot be sure that it has not been altered.
We need to try to verify that the text is pure text. There is reason to believe
that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it
already in the second century. What we wish to ascertain, however, is not merely
an ancient text but an accurate text.
Of course, "the grossest errors," that this writer is referring to are not
doctrinal errors, but the errors in the text itself. Not surprisingly tho, some
of these textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective
doctrinal changes as they were being introduced in the early church. This
historic falling away will be addressed later.
Just as with the manuscripts, all extant Versions, containing the end of
Matthew, also contain the Triune name. But, of course, there is more to be
considered than what is present in a document. One must also take into
consideration what is absent. Again quoting from the Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics: "In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional
[Trinitarian] 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
F.C. Conybeare further elaborated:
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 Triune name in
Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at
all. And curiously, not due to omission, but due to removal! We can not be
certain of the motives why these pages were destroyed, but for the sake of our
study we are now compelled to consult the early historical writings
Excerpts of Early Catholic Writers
Before we make references concerning these early writers, it should be
emphatically stated, that if the question under consideration were one of
doctrine, the written records of these Catholic writers would be totally
irrelevant. Doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of God alone, and not
from Catholics, Jews or other sources. These self proclaimed "fathers" lived in
an age of unrestrained heresy. Their testimony is valuable only because they
provide an incidental and independent verification of scriptural texts much
older than our current complete copies.
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 [L.
pater:"father"] 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
Could this bold statement be true? While not a single manuscript from the first
three centuries remains in existence, we do have "eye witness" observations of
at least two men who actually had access to manuscripts dating much earlier than
our earliest. Others also quoted Matthew 28:19, whose written works have been
preserved, dating to much earlier times than our best manuscript copies. We are
about to examine who these men were and what the circumstances were. We will
attempt to determine if these are reliable quotations of the original
scriptures. How did they quote Matthew 28:19? Did their comments imply an
existing controversy surrounding the use of the scriptures being quoted? Was a
Trinity implied? These are questions that can be answered.
In the pages ahead, we will consider evidence from the following men, either via
quotations from their writings, or as commented upon thru the writings of their
contemporaries:1) Eusebius of Caesurae, 2) The unknown author of De Rebaptismate,
3) Origen, 4) Clement of Alexandria, 5) Justin Martyr, 6) Macedonius, 7)
Eunomius and 8) Aphraates.
Our search through their writings is not to establish any doctrine, but to find
early witnesses to the verse in question.
Eusebius of Caesurae
Our first witness will be Eusebius of Caesurae, also known as Eusebius Pamphili.
He was born around 270 A.D., and died around 340 A.D. He lived in times of
rampant doctrinal change, was a Trinitarian, and in later life assisted in the
formation of the Nicene Creed. Regarding our inquiry into Matthew 28:19,
Eusebius is our key witness. Therefore, to establish his veracity as a credible
witness, let us consider the following quotes:"Eusebius of Caesurae, 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." Robert
Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg. 10
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. E.K. in the
Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote.
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesurae 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 Caesurae, 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 Caesurae. .. 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. Mosheim
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 Caesurae, 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 Caesurae 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. F.C.
Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October 1902.
Considering the honesty, ability and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the
"New Testament" text, let us now move on to the his evidence concerning Matthew
The Evidence of Eusebius
According to Ludwig Knupfer, the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte,
Eusebius, among his many other writings compiled a file of corrupted variations
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.
His source material has been lost, as he later wrote:
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
Ploughman's research uncovered all of these quotations except for 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. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he
more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed
the wording "in my name". Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote
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.' (col. 240, p. 136)
Conybeare proceeded, 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
In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote:
It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from
his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae 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.
Naturally 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 briefer wording in his works for fear of vulgarizing the
"sacred" Trinitarian wording. Interestingly, a modern Bishop revived the very
argument used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost:and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in
earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood:and these three agree in one.
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 continued, 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
Finally, the Encyclopaedia 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
Having considered the evidence of Eusebius, let us also consider some other
Other Early Writings
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'. (The Author of De Rebaptismate, from Smith's Dictionary of the
Bible, Vol. I, page 352.)
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. ив Conybeare
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]. .. 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. - Enc. 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)
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. ( This decision did
not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire
Celtic Church for its remaining faithful to the old use of invoking in Jesus
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)
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")
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. ив Conybeare
How the Manuscripts Were Changed
The following quotations demonstrate how freely the scribes altered the
manuscripts of the "New Testament", in stark contrast to the scribes of the "Old
Testament" scriptures who copied the holy writings with reverence and strict
These quotations also show the early heretical beginning of Trine immersion at a
time when the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated, and how the "New
Testament" writings were changed to conform to the syncretized practice.
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.
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. - Fraternal Visitor 1924, page 148, translation from
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. Whiston - in Second Letter to the Bishop of
London, 1719, p. 15.
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. Smith's Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities (Article on Baptism)
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. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church -
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. Catholic Encyclopedia - page 262
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. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics - Article
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. Conybeare - In the Hibbert Journal
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'. Robert Roberts, in "Good Company"
(Vol. iii, page 49)
Whiston, in Second Letter Concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, page 17,
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 alteration of 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 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.
Considering the evidence of the manuscripts, the versions and now the early
writings, you should by now have come to conclusion that in the early centuries
some copies of Matthew did not contain the modern Triune wording. 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 an original lost document vary, the "Internal
Evidence" is used to resolve the discrepancy. That is, a comparison of the
undisputed text with text in question, in order to determine which of the
variant wordings is more likely to be the original. With both variants in mind,
we will now turn to the scriptures themselves for our internal evidence.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. "(1 Thessalonians 5:21)
In this verse, the Greek word translated as "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
In our efforts to determine which reading of Matthew 28:19 is original, we
will submit both renderings to ten "tests". In doing so, we will be able to
recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious.
1. The Test of Context
When examining the context, we find that today's Trinitarian wording lacks
logical syntax, that is, the true understanding of the verse is obscured by a
failure of the varying concepts to harmonize. If however, we read as follows,
the whole context fits together and the progression of the instructions is
All power is given unto me. .. go therefore. .. make
disciples in my name, teaching them. .. whatsoever I have
commanded. .. I am with you. .. (Matthew 28:18-20)
2. The Test of Frequency
Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit" used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once.
Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? Yes, 17 times
to be exact, examples are 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 Doctrine
Is any doctrine or concept of scripture based on an understanding of a
threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any
statement in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes!
This is clarified in 1 Corinthians 1:13:"Is Christ divided? Was Paul
crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" These words,
when carefully analyzed, suggest that believers should to be baptized in the
name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable
love, gave us His only Son to die in our stead, He being later raised to
incorruptibility by the Spirit of God. But it is the Lord Jesus Himself who was
crucified, and therefore in His name believers must be baptized in water.
According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article 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. The Father did not die, nor the Holy
Spirit. As the scripture says, "buried with Him (Jesus) in
baptism," not with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5)
R. Roberts used this explanation in "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 reasoning offered by Paul. 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 replaces Christ from His position as the sacrificial Lamb
and the only name given to us for salvation?
Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of
Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, "in my name."
4. The Test of Analogy
Does any other scripture make reference to baptism in the Triune name? No.
Does any other scripture reference baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! The Father
baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came
according to Jesus "in His name. "(John 14:26) This is because Jesus is
the "common denominator " [Literally:Name] in both water baptism and
baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent by the following scriptures:
John 16:7 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.
John 14:26 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. (See also John 7:39).
Acts 8:12 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.
Notice that they were baptized as a result of 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 the invoking of His Name is the
catalyst of understanding that prepares us for the baptism of the Spirit, which
is also given in His name. (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5)
5. The Test of Consequence
When we are 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 baptismal accounts recorded in scripture, we
are quite literally being baptized "into" the name of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.
No mention is made in scripture of any baptism being related to the titles of
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Every actual account mentions a clear connection
with the person of Christ, and His atoning sacrifice.
6. The Test of Practice
Did the disciples, as they were implementing the "Great Commission" ever
once baptize into the Trinity? Never! Did they baptize in the name of Jesus?
Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.) The argument has been
made when defending Triune immersion; "I would rather obey Jesus, than to
imitate the Apostles." This kind of reasoning though, places the Apostles in
rebellion, and makes all Apostolic baptisms contrary to the word of God. If
all of God's Word was inspired, and it was, then we should not try to pit
one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of God's Word in
proper context, and rightly apply it to our lives. It is easier to believe that
the disciples followed the final instructions of Christ, than to believe
that they immediately disobeyed His command.
7. The Test of Significance
What significance is mentioned in scripture for baptizing believers in the
name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None. What significance is conveyed
toward being baptized in the name of Jesus? First, scripture teaches that
baptism in the name of Jesus is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness
of sins (Acts 2:38). Second, baptism in His name alone is associated with
the promise of God's Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, baptism in the name
of Jesus is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices or even
die with 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, therefore becoming a " new creature in Christ Jesus. "
(Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Baptism in the name of Jesus expresses
faith in the physical life of Jesus, the crucifixion of the Son of God for our
sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Trinitarian baptism can only
express faith in Catholic theology itself.
8. The Test of Parallel Accounts
Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the gospels of the "Great Commission"
of the Church. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47,
he wrote of Jesus speaking in the third person:"And that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nation s.
"This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes
the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus spoke in the first person,
"in my name. "Further, the Gospel of Mark also records another 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" refers to here, but rather the works that
the disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, 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 Trinitarian
baptism, there is a striking resemblance between the actual wording of Matthew
28:18-20 and Romans 1:4-5. Matthew contains the Commission of Christ to His
Apostles, while the Romans account is Paul's acceptance of his own commission as
an apostle. Consider the following similarities:
Matthew 28:18-20........................................Romans 1:4-5
"all power is given unto Me". ....................... "the Son of God
"Go ye". ......................................................
"received. .. apostleship"
"teaching them to observe". .......................... "for obedience to
"all nations". ................................................. "all
"in My name". ............................................... "for His
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" would of
certain necessity include baptism, which is a command involving both word and
deed. The traditional wording of Matthew, containing the Trinitarian wording, is
clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter wording, without
the falsified insertion, follows this principle. This establishes which of the
two wordings is the contradictory one. God's Word does not contradict itself;
rather it compliments and completes itself. Paul not only expressed this
principle, but he applied it specifically to the topic of baptism. In Acts
19:1-6 there is an account concerning the 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 message,
which accompanied his baptism, was that One would come after him, who would
"take away the sins of the world" and "baptize with the Holy Spirit. "Paul
introduced these disciples to that One, and applied the above principle
re-baptized them. "When they heard this, they were baptized into the name
of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit
came upon them" And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings
in Matthew 28:19, we find very strong support for the phrase "in My name. "
Sufficient evidence has been produced to enable the reader to decide whether or
not the Trinitarian wording in Matthew 28:19 is genuine. The following
quotations are presented by way of interest, and are not used in the arena of
textual criticism thus far employed.
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.
- Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Article:Baptism:Early
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'. Dr.
Peake - Bible Commentary, page 723
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. F. Whiteley in The Testimony (Oct. 1959, pg. 351.
"Back to Babylon")
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. Williams R.R. - Theological Workbook of the Bible, page 29
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. Dean Stanley - "Christian
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.
E.K. in the Fraternal Visitor - Article:"The Question of the Trinity and
Matt. 28:19." 1924, pg. 147-151, from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
In his Literal Translation of the Bible, Dr. Robert Young placed the Trinitarian
"names" of Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of
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
The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent
Christian mind. James Martineau - Black's Bible Dictionary, article "Seat of
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.
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Professor Harnack dismissed the text almost contemptuously as being "no word
of the Lord'. "Professor Harnack ив History of Dogma (German Edition)
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'.
F. Whiteley in The Testimony footnotes to Article:Baptism, 1958.
Should we correct the text of Matthew 28:19? We could not find a more serious
divinely appointed symbolism in the entire Bible. The symbolic value of baptism
in Matthew 28:19 could not be of less concern to God than that of the Ark of the
Covenant was in ancient Israel. Uzzah died when he touched it, and few would
conclude that his motives were anything but commendable!
Every symbolic action required by God is associated with actual cause and
effect. Consider the following cause-and-effect examples. When Joshua
pointed his spear there was victory (Joshua 8:18) Only three victories were
given to Joash when he struck the ground only three times (2 Kings 13:19-25) The
Passover Lamb had to be without blemish (even as was Christ), if a household was
to be protected from the Death Angel (Exodus 12:5). None of God's rituals are
without true meaning and consequences. When God speaks, it is done! Christ
called Lazarus, and Lazarus arose! In matters of ritual, such as Baptism and the
Passover, we are dealing with God's rituals, not man's.
All man-made rituals, no matter how well intentioned, when they deviate from the
Word of God, are nothing more than unprofitable traditions that "making the
Word of God of no effect" (Mark 7:13). Obedience to God's commands, however,
will always "cause" a desirable "effect".
In the matter of establishing the original text of Matthew 28:19, it is indeed
important to determine what is genuine, and what is spurious, in order to
properly obey God's command. After all, that is the essence of our introductory
text from Deuteronomy 4:2, "You shall not add. .. nor take from.
.. that you may keep the commandments. "When we are obedient to the true
command of our Lord, we can expect an eternal effect.
Believers were taught to anoint the sick "with oil in the name of the Lord. "(James
5:14) The result would be "that you may be healed". 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 us to go and make
disciples " in His name". As a result, He would be with them "always,
even to the end of the age. "Anything we do "in His name" directly
involves Him. It is no wonder that Paul so clearly charged those believers in
Colosse:"Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God and the Father by Him!"
1. The Light is Dawning
In 1960, The British and Foreign Bible Society published a Greek Testament,
and the alternative rendering for Matthew 28:19 was phrased "en to onomati mou"
("in my name"). Eusebius was cited as the authority.
The Jerusalem Bible, of 1966, a Roman Catholic production, has this footnote for
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 !
This is true. They refer only of "making disciples of all nations" and
"repentance and remission of sins. "However, once we have established that
the original text of Matthew 28:19 simply says "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 regarding baptism,
in order to find any other possible support for the traditional reading, because
the Trinitarian doctrinal concept that was added to Matthew 28:19 is
connected with baptism. Though baptism is not specifically mentioned in
Matthew 28:19 or Luke 24:47, it is inferred by 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
specification to do so "in His name."
2. In Luke, "repentance and remission of sins" would be preached "in His
name." By the testimony of other scriptures (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38), it is clear
that remission of sins comes through baptism, preceded by
repentance. Both of these are to be preached "in His name."
3. The Evidence of Eusebius
Jerome was born A.D. 331 and died in 420. He wrote many exegetical and
controversial treatises and letters, as well as the renowned Latin Vulgate
translation of the Scriptures.) He made an interesting statement which is 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 Caesurae which the martyr Pamphilus so
Now Eusebius of Caesurae (260-340 A.D.) inherited from that Pamphilus (who died
in A.D. 310) that famous Library, a library that was commenced by Origen
(185-254 A.D.). The wording of that statement by Jerome apparently meant that
the original Manuscript of Matthew was still to be seen in the Library at
Caesurae. It could have meant that an early copy of Matthew's Hebrew writing was
there, but the phraseology of Jerome appeared to indicate that it was the actual
Manuscript written by Matthew himself.
4. The Mental Reservations of Eusebius
On page 14, of the above reference, 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. At the Council of Nicaea (A. D.325) Eusebius took a leading part.
.. He occupied the first seat to the emperor's right, and delivered 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 Caesurae.
.. 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. Dictionary of Christian Biography
and Literature; Eusebius
2. 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. Wallace
Hadrill, in 'Eusebius of Caesurae,' (1960)
3.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'. William Bright in
his Preface to Burton's 'Text of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History'
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 and illustrate that pronouncement:
1.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.
The Authentic New Testament was translated by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield,
published in 1962.
It is in that century, as has been pointed out, that the "very grossest textual
errors" deformed the Sacred Text.
2. The S.P.E.C. commenting on Matthew 28:19 stated:
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. The S.P.C.K. published
in 1964, Volume One, of the Clarified New Testament.
3. F.C. Kenyon, in The Text of the Greek Bible, pages 241-242 said:
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 Trinitarian doctrinal insertion 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 many
false teachings that developed into the Papal Superstitions. The seeds of
Indulgences, the Mass, the Confessional, the substitution of sprinkling for
immersion and other gross errors are to be found in that disreputable
pseudo-Christian document. (Refs:IV 1, IX 2-4, X 2-6, XIII 3, XIV 1and IV 6.)
In the Didache, among all the above mentioned apostate beliefs, is found the
Trinitarian phrase that later wormed its way into the text of Matthew 28:19,
displacing the authentic words of Christ. Here, then, is the source of the
erroneous written teaching reflecting the practice of apostate "Christians" in
the second century.
7. Should you be Re-Baptized?
After restoring the text of Matthew 28:19 to its original form, i.e., "Go ye
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in my name," the following
question naturally arises:"I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. Since this is not Biblical, should I be re-baptized?" Rather than
answer according to our own wisdom or bias, let us find the answer to this
important question in the Word of God itself, for that alone is the true
standard against which to measure our experience with the Lord. Turning to Acts
we find the answer.
Acts19:1-6 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul,
having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some
disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy
Spirit. " And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said,
"Into John's baptism. " Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of
repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come
after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. "When they heard this, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on
them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and
By reading the above narrative, it is easy to discover the answer to our
question. Paul found disciples, who like most of us today, had heard the message
of the Kingdom of God, and had responded to that message by being baptized
following our repentance. However, in this situation, these "disciples" had yet
to hear the full gospel message, namely that Jesus, in His death, burial and
resurrection had purchased salvation for all mankind by becoming the very
Lamb of God that John had preached about. Because of this, their baptism,
under the ministry and authority of John (who preceded Christ) did not reflect
an association with the death and burial of Jesus that made baptism in
His name effective.
While we responded to the complete gospel message, they affirmed their belief by
a baptism that only associated them with a doctrinal creed, rather than
the atoning blood of Jesus that is only appropriated through His name.
For Paul, the next step was obvious. Knowing that the promise of the Holy Spirit
was given to those who through the obedience of faith had repented of their
sins, and been baptized in the name of Jesus, he instructed them to be
Acts 4:12 for there is no other name under heaven, given among
men by which we must be saved.
Was Paul mistaken? Or have we been? Certainly Paul was not, for according to
God's promise, He laid hands on the people and they received the Holy Spirit
only moments after being baptized in His name. Remember, 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 stake for our sins, and the remission of sins
through His name. In summary, using the name of Jesus in the baptismal formula
expresses faith in:
1. The Person of Christ (who He really is);
2. The Work of Christ (His death, burial and resurrection for us); and
3. The Power and Authority of Christ (His ability to save us by Himself).
For these very reasons, baptism was then, and should continue now to be
administered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. His Word, not the tradition
and fabrications of men, should be the standard which we teach, believe and
obey. As the opening scripture so aptly admonishes us:
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take
from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command
September 15, 2001
My [alway] comments:
1 Thess 5:1
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
While I, personally, don't think it's necessary to be re-baptized since it's
impossible to gather all those people who saw me get baptized in the traditional
version instead of "in My name", I can only urge those who are convicted to let
others know who are contemplating baptism to be baptized truthfully and
correctly in the name of Jesus:
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from
the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the
stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the
corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other:for there is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They
shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
If you examine the commentaries on this text, you can readily discover that
the text is spurious and should not appear in our NT Scriptures. The RCC admits
to having added the words:
"the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" to the text.
This was possibly because they were the guardians of the NT manuscripts for so
many centuries. God's Messenger had a vision of seeing men trying to alter the
scriptures but she wrote that God guarded His scriptures despite of men altering
certain portions. 1 John 5:7 is another of these spurious passages that doesn't
exist in some manuscripts.
We must certainly "Prove all things":
A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius
quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea.
According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have
been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius
informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of
Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make
disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things
whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics :
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the
traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be
decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism,
literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further
states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the
triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is
that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28 :
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical
origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text
has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is often affirmed that the
words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not
the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295 :
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the
Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in
Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263 :
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
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 (c AD 180),...(The term
Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the
baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in
any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, 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
into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) 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
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."
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19 :
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it
represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts
(or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the
James Moffett's New Testament Translation :
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be
that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is
concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later
in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Tom Harpur :
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's
sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative
scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of
Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else
in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of
the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these
words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost")
baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the
verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded
[changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first
view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the
nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship
as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of
the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian)
commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold
[Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723 :
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "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."
Theology of the New Testament :
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the
Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is
openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally
consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged,
and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22,
Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According
to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the
need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the
head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church :
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the
former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr.
Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the
original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism.
"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although
those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms
fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more
ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This
practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject
of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De
rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1,
Prolegomena 1 :
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and
Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the
sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles
represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second
century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back
to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of
the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted
by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental
regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord
of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained
by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in
the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism
in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its
institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of
all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded
as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any
extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr,
though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels;
Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is
ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another
form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can
doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by
the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that
transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the
ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm
the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded
them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the
evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in
Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic
Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of
(Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the
narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord
Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the
problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a
universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles,
but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake
makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache
has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the
necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous
passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the
apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited
or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact
that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus
but later changed to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity)
formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition
for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case
of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be
inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a
chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament
Studies Number 5 :
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard
Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These
passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord."
Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that
Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given
such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and
we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace
can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the
anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was
(the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
A History of The Christian Church :
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale
University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the
early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no
mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in
the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not
the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice
recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The
Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier
form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if
irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and
purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed
that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19
was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called
heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion
although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts
the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-
Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was
invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19
is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great
Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient
original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew
28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and
"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of
apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis
saw a corresponding development of (man- made non-inspired spurious) creed, at
least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the
middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150
and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an
explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of
the so-called Apostles Creed."
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger :
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew
28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith
took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection
with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the
text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text
of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later
invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152
Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in
Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that
could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew.
Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text
of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and
make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
The God Of Our Fathers
The one true God of the Bible introduced Himself to Moses:
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is
my memorial unto all generations.
The words 'LORD God' is the exact English rendition of the Hebrew 'YHWH
elohiym'. 'Yahweh' or 'Jehovah' is the proper name of the one true God.
It has been argued by proponents of the Trinity doctrine that because Jesus
used 'I am' in John 8:58 that Jesus claimed to be the one true God Who
introduced Himself to Moses in Exodus 3.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto
the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
In the book "The Trinity" by Woodrow Whidden, Ph. D., Jerry Moon, Ph. D., and
John W. Reese (pursuing a Ph. D) published by Review and Herald in 2002 page 29:
(quote) "John 8 reports a serious dialogue with the Jewish leaders in which
"Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM'"
(verse 58). Some astonishing points leap out at us from this declaration.
First., the overwhelming majority of Bible students acknowledger that when
Jesus said "I AM" He is clearly referring to Exodus 3:14 and applying it to
"Jesus' application of these verses to Himself offers compelling evidence of
His full deity. Christ was plainly appropriating to Himself the very expressions
used by the God of the Old Testament Exodus to identify Himself to the enslaved
children of Israel. Furthermore, not only does Jesus present Himself as the God
who refers to Himself as the "I AM", but also the deity who refers to Himself as
"the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," the one who is
"The Lord God of your fathers" (verse 15). Jesus is most obviously claiming to
be none other than the God of the Exodus, the Lord (YHWH, Jehovah) God of the
great founding patriarchs of the nation of Israel." (end quote)
We're not going into the real meaning of John 8:58 at this time but we'll
assume that this Trinitarian insistence - that Jesus claimed to be the LORD God
of your fathers, the I AM - is true at the moment. Let's allow God's Word to
tell us if this is correct and Biblically sound by harmonizing God's Word with
A simple yet trustworthy principle is worth repeating: one passage of the
Bible will NEVER contradict another passage in the Bible because only one Author
gave the Bible and will not contradict Himself despite inspiring many different
people from different time periods ranging from Moses to Paul to complete His
Word to humanity.
Moses wrote in Exodus:
'...LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God
- Exodus 3:15
Luke wrote in Acts:
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath
glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of
Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
- Acts 3:13
Because God will NEVER contradict Himself, God's Word is in harmony with itself.
Luke, the attributed writer of Acts, will not contradict Moses, especially on
the issue of the true identity of the God of their fathers.
Based on the above evidence, is 'the LORD God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob a Trinity? Is it Jesus Christ
Himself or inclusive of the person we know as Jesus Christ?
Who did Peter identify as "the God of our fathers"?
Peter said: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our
fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus"!
There can be no doubt that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
because there is only one Being in the universe Who's Son is Jesus Christ and is
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus' prayer in John 17:3 readily comes to
mind in support and in harmony with the above two passages.
Telling The Truth That Jesus Christ is the Son of the One True God
Man spends the night with his mistress.
At dawn, man leaves mistress but puts powder on his hands.
Man comes home to his wife.
Wife opens the door and asks her husband:
"Where have you been?"
"Honey, I have a confession to make: I spent the night with another woman."
Wife looks at him and says:
"Show me your hands."
Husband, whose hands were behind his back, shows his hands.
Wife angrily says:
"Don't lie to me, you spent the night playing billiards with your buddies
"No, honey. I'm telling the truth! I spent the night with another woman!"
1. Was the man telling the truth about what he did spending the night?
2. Was he lying about the other woman?
3. Did the man deceive his wife?
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
When God said that Jesus was His Son, did God tell the truth? If so, did God
want us to believe Jesus is truly His Son that we, human beings, could
understand, or did He really mean that Jesus really the "God the Son" who is
merely playing the role of a son?
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a
more excellent name than they.
The writer of Hebrews writes that the Son of God was "made so much better
than the angels...".
The word "made" is the Greek 'ginomai' (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=kjv)
It means any of the following:
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage of men appearing in
4) to be made, finished of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
If anyone were to choose, which of the five options comes as the closest
rendering or translation of the word 'ginomai' based on the verse and the
preceding and proceeding context? This context includes the following
a) Son - Heb 1:2
c) heir - Heb 1:2
b) express image (Heb 1:3)
c) inheritance (Heb 1:4)
d) begotten (Heb 1:5)
e) Father / Son (Heb 1:5)
If the Son of God is supposed to be 'co-eternal' (as taught by the Trinity
doctrine), which of the above options lends support and still be in within the
context with Hebrews 1? Would the Son be inferior in nature or existence if He
inherited ALL His Father's divine attributes?
Can the Son really proceed from God if it's only role-playing and not a
literal offspring? Can God be really a father if there is no real filial
connection but simply two Beings unrelated to each other in any way except that
they are one in purpose, in character, etc?
"The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in
infinity, but not in personality. He has wrought out the righteousness that
enables human beings to overcome every assault of Satan. He will impute His
righteousness to the believing saint who walks as He walked when on earth." UL
What does "truly God in infinity, but not in personality" mean? This simply
means, based on the context of Jesus Christ being truly the Son of God, is that
the Son's personality came into existence after He received being by Him being
begotten by God in the "express image" of God's person.
In the July 9, 1895 R&H EGW wrote:
"The Eternal Father, the unchangeable One, gave His only begotten Son, tore
from His bosom Him Who was made in the express image of His Person and sent Him
down to earth to reveal how greatly He loved mankind."
Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895:
"There is but one way of escape for the sinner. There is but one agency
whereby he may be cleansed from sin. He must accept the propitiation that has
been made by the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. The shed
blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. "For he hath made him to be sin for
us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to
give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." A complete offering has
been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-
not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the
forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person,
and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in
authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the
When God audibly speaks that Jesus is His Son, believe Him. He has no
intention to deceive or mislead
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should
repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he
not make it good?
The Holy Spirit / Comforter
From God's Word: (the harmony of God's Word)
11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand
what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given
you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy
18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a
testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for
it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh
Did you get that? Here are both passages together, harmonized:
Mark 13:11 says that "... it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost".
Matthew 10:20 says "... it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your
Is the "Spirit of your Father" a separate person than the Father?
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he
may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him
not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall
be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your
hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
Jesus said the Comforter/Holy Ghost will the Father send in His name. Assuming
this is a third Person (like what the Trinity doctrine teaches), we have to
conclude that "the Spirit of his Son" is the Holy Ghost whom the Father sent in
Is the "Spirit of his Son" a separate person from the Son?
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc19.html - GC pp350-351
When on His resurrection day these disciples met the Saviour, and their hearts
burned within them as they listened to His words; when they looked upon the head
and hands and feet that had been bruised for them; when, before His ascension,
Jesus led them out as
far as Bethany, and lifting up His hands in blessing, bade them, "Go ye into all
the world, and preach the gospel," adding, "Lo, I am with you alway" (Mark
16:15; Matthew 28:20); when on the Day of Pentecost the promised Comforter
descended and the power from on high was given and the souls of the believers
thrilled with the conscious presence of their ascended Lord--then, even
though, like His, their pathway led through sacrifice and martyrdom, would they
have exchanged the ministry of the gospel of His grace, with the "crown of
righteousness" to be received at His coming, for the glory of an earthly throne,
which had been the hope of their earlier discipleship? He who is "able to do
exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think," had granted them, with the
fellowship of His sufferings, the communion of His joy--the joy of "bringing
many sons unto glory," joy unspeakable, an "eternal weight of glory," to which,
says Paul, "our light affliction, which is but for a moment," is "not worthy to
be compared." (emphasis in bold mine)
She writes that at the Day of Pentecost, "the promised Comforter descended
and the power from on high was given and the souls of the believers thrilled
with the conscious presence of their ascended Lord"!
WHO descended - Jesus or a third person (not the Father nor Jesus)?
Another quote to consider:
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da73.html (DA pp 668-669):
Before offering Himself as the sacrificial victim, Christ sought for the most
essential and complete gift to bestow upon His followers, a gift that
would bring within their reach the boundless resources of grace. "I will pray
the Father," He said, "and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may
abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth
with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans: I will come to
you." John 14:16-18, margin.
Before this the Spirit had been in the world; from the very beginning of the
work of redemption He had been moving upon men's hearts. But while Christ was on
earth, the disciples had desired no other helper. Not until they were deprived
of His presence would they feel their need of the Spirit, and then He would
The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality
of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ
could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest
that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on
earth. No one could then have any advantage because of his location or his
personal contact with Christ. By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible
to all. In this sense He would be nearer to them than if He had not ascended on
high. (emphasis in bold mine)
According to her, "The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested
of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof."
WHEN did the Holy Spirit HAVE the "personality of humanity" for her to
write that the Holy Spirit was now DIVESTED (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=divested
- to strip, disposses) [It says, if I'm understanding the word "divested"
correctly, something that was there before but is no longer there].
Did EGW know the identity of the Holy Spirit? If so, did she write that the Holy
Spirit is a third person aside from God and Jesus Christ?
I suspect that even Matthew 16:18 was also tampered with to "prove" that Peter
was the first Pope. Here's the traditional rendering in the KJV:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "
I suspect (I have no proof, just suspicion) that the original goes like this:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
18 "And I say also unto thee, upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "
Upon the fact that Jesus is the Son of God will Christ build His church! Neither
Peter (small rock, a pebble or stone), nor the Trinity doctrine (which teaches
that Jesus is "God the Son" and, ultimately, not really the Son of God) is the
rock upon which Christ will build His church.
My point here is this: If Matthew 28:19 has been tampered with, along with 1
John 5:7, is it at all very possible that some of EGW writings have been
tampered with to make it seem that she changed her original understanding of the
one true God and has acceded to the Trinitarian position?
you'll find the comparison between the 1874 Synopsis Statement and the current
voted on SDA 27 Fundamental Beliefs Statements. Compare them and see for
yourself whether our pioneers did not know Who the Creator was or whether they
were confused as to Who the Creator was.
It is so easy to add statements that seem to support the Trinity doctrine from
her writings but please consider the weight of evidence from her writings. Let's
apply those 10 "internal tests", if possible, and find out for ourselves if she
was confused as to Who the Creator is and Who the Creator created all things
The above two passages were not written by a Trinitarian for obvious reasons. A
Trinitarian would not write that "The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative,
but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof."
Anyway, I could go on and on with this. I can only urge anyone who reads the
above passages and EGW writings to consider all things and to hold fast that
which is true. While we are not to lean on our own understanding but to
acknowledge God in all our ways, we are not told not to use our God-given
ability to discern and choose right from wrong.
(I sent this to the list of fellow non-Trinitarian Adventists (friends and
relatives) as comments to the past two Sabbaths' lessons on miracles of Jesus).
The Miracles of Jesus
Another quick reference for this Quarter's SS Lessons:
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God
among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst
of you, as ye yourselves also know:"
"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went
about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was
God performed all the miracles Jesus did. It was God Who did all the miracles
through Jesus Christ. Same idea when God created all things - He did it all
through His Son - the pre-human Word of John 1.
Because the Son of God became a human being just like us, He left all attributes
that would make Him more than a normal human being. That's the most important
thing here. Otherwise, Jesus would not be our Example because He was not really
one of us!
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering
of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should
taste death for every man."
"4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou
visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast
crowned him with glory and honour."
"5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of
no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and
became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a
woman, made under the law"
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
These are just a few passages that tell us that the Son of God became fully
human and did NOT retain His pre-human form/existence. To say otherwise, even
though it's popular or considered 'orthodox' and 'mainstream', would be to
contradict God's Word.
Jesus is still the divine Son of God but NOT because of His divine form (He
already left this existence and now exists as a human being and will always be a
human being throughout all eternity - that's the infinite sacrifice He made!)
but because of WHO He is - the Son of God.
A quick illustration:
The royal clothes that Prince Charles wears does not make him a prince. He
remains a prince even if he wore beggar's clothes. Even in beggar's clothes he
is royalty and of noble heritage.
Simiarly, the 'human clothes' that Jesus Christ wears today has no bearing in
Him being the divine Son of God. He remains divine because of Who He is - the
Son of God.
"Divinity was clothed with humanity." This EGW quote will be hurled at you to
"prove" that Jesus Christ retained His divine form even after the Bible clearly
states in many places that the "Word became flesh."
Trinitarian Adventists misinterpret her writings. She simply means, in harmony
with the Bible, that the human clothes clothed the divine Son of God. Before
this, we can say that divinity was clothed with divinity.
That's why Jesus said to His disciples:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do
shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my
Some say the word "greater" here means greater in quantity not quality. It may
or may not be accurate. The point here is that because Jesus was fully human
like us, there is NO REASON for us not to be able to do all the miracles Jesus
did IF we believe in God and allow Him to do the great things He did through
Jesus while Jesus was on earth.
Lastly, let me quote Mark 16's version of the Gospel Commission again:
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe;
In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not
hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven,
and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every
where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.
Believe. That's what we need to do. May God help our unbelief. Let's let Him!