Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!
Part 2, Were You Baptized Into Apostasy?
Chapter 13, Part 2 Preview: (Back to Part 1) Were you baptized contrary to the scriptures? A Roman Emperor insisted that Trinitarian wording be inserted into the Latin Vulgate Bible, as it was being written. The chapter explains how the fraudulent text has crept into every modern English version of the Bible, and has even eluded being discovered by sects that do not teach that God is a Trinity. The question becomes: Does it matter whose name you were baptized into?
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? (actually Yeshua, off site) Yes. When we are baptized in the name of Yeshua, according to all baptismal accounts recorded in scripture, we are quite literally being baptized “into” the name of Yeshua, (I prefer to use the name that His friends, neighbors and family called Him over a translated form).
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into [the Messiah] have put on [the Messiah].
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 Yeshua, and His atoning sacrifice.
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 Yeshua?—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 them to our lives. It is easier to believe that the Disciples followed the final instructions of Yeshua, than to believe that they immediately disobeyed His command.
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 Yeshua? First, scripture teaches that baptism in the name of Yeshua 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 Yeshua is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices or even die with Him. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being baptized into the Messiah’s name is how we “put on” the Messiah (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, baptism in His name is called the “circumcision of the Messiah”, and reflects our “putting off” of the man of sin, therefore becoming a “new creature in [our Messiah Yeshua].” (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Baptism in the name of Yeshua expresses faith in the physical life of Yeshua, 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.
The Test of Parallel Accounts
Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the New Scriptures (“NT”) of the “Great Commission”. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he wrote of Yeshua speaking in the third person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.” This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Yeshua 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 you ... 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”.
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 the Messiah 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 with power”
“Go you” ....................................................... “received...apostleship”
“teaching them to observe” ......................... “for obedience to the faith”
“all nations” ................................................ “all nations”
“in My name” .............................................. “for His name”
The Test of Principle
Colossians 3:17 ... whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the NAME of the [Master Yeshua]....
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 Yeshua’s name, John’s baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38). John’s 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.
Acts 19:5-6 When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the [Master Yeshua]. 6 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”.
Other Sources
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.
“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 Jesus—Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Article: Baptism: Early Christian.
“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 Jesus’ (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 ‘Jesus’ [the Messiah]. 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 [Master Yeshua] only.—Dean Stanley, Christian Institutions
“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 doubtful authenticity.
The very account which tells us that at last, after His resurrection, He commissioned His Disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself.
“The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind.—James Martineau, Black’s Bible Dictionary, article “Seat of Authority”,
“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 in his “History of Dogma” (German Edition) dismissed the text almost contemptuously as being “no word of the Lord’.”
“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 (off site) 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.
P.S. There is another Scriptural source that dismisses the Trinitarian formula of baptism. The original book of Matthew (as well as the book of Hebrews) was written in Hebrew. The composit version compiled by Shem Tov, and named after him, was taken from the oldest Hebrew sources. While Shem Tov, being Jewish, was against the teaching that the Yeshua was the Messiah, he nonetheless preserved the entire book for the purpose of railing against it! While a bias against using the name of Yeshua crept in; I find it most interesting that the oldest known manuscript predated the Trinity theory, and therefore has no reference to a Trinitarian baptism. Following is a quote from an article on the Shem Tov:
“Lack of Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19-20 [in the Shem Tov] is unique but [at least Yeshua] seems to be in codices that Eusebius found in Caesarea: he quotes (H.E. 3.5.2): “They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Jesus for he had said to them, “Go make Disciples of all the nations in My name”. The Shem Tov version of Matthew reads:
“You go and teach them to carry out all the things that I have commanded you forever.”
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 is of no less importance than 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 Yeshua), if a household was to be protected from death (Exodus 12:5). None of God’s rituals are without true meaning and consequences. When God speaks, it is done! Yeshua 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 are “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 the introductory text from Deuteronomy:
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 God, we can expect an eternal effect.
The Saints [off site] 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, Yeshua 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 the Nazarenes (“Christians”) in Colossi:
Colossians 3:17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the [Master Yeshua], giving thanks to God and the Father by Him!
Addendum:
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 Matthew 28:19:
“It may be that this formula ... is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing in the name of [Yeshua].
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:
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”.
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”.
The Evidence of Eusebius
“Jerome was born AD 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 diligently collected.
Now Eusebius of Caesurae (260-340 AD) inherited from that Pamphilus (who died in AD 310) that famous Library, a library that was commenced by Origen (185-254 AD). 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.
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:
“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
“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)
“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’
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:
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.
The S.P.E.C. 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.
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.
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 AD 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: IV1, IX2-4, X2-6, XIII3, XIV1 and IV6.)
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 Yeshua. Here, then, is the source of the erroneous written teaching reflecting the practice of apostates in the second century.
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’s 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 God. In Acts we find the answer:
Acts 19:1-6 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 [our Messiah Yeshua].” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the [Master Yeshua]. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
By reading the above narrative, it is easy to discover the answer to our question. Paul found Disciples, who like most of us today, were seeking the Kingdom of God, and who had been baptized following their repentance. However, in this situation, these “Disciples” had yet to hear the full message—namely that Yeshua, in His death, burial and resurrection had purchased salvation for all mankind by becoming the very Lamb of God whom John had preached about. Because of this, their baptism, under the ministry and authority of John (who preceded Yeshua) did not reflect an association with the death and burial of Yeshua that made baptism in His name effective.
While we respond to Yeshua’“Good News”, they affirmed their belief by a baptism that only associated them with a doctrinal creed, rather than the atoning blood of Yeshua 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 Yeshua, he instructed them to be re-baptized:
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 Yeshua expresses faith in the Incarnation, the authentic human life of Yeshua, the death of the Son of God on the [off site] for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. In summary, using the name of Yeshua in the baptismal formula expresses faith in:
1. The Person of Yeshua (who He really is)
2. The Work of Yeshua (His death, burial and resurrection for us)
3. The Power and Authority of Yeshua (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 Master Yeshua. 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 you.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in [the Messiah]. 4 For if he who comes preaches another [Yeshua] [a pseudo Yeshua] whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different [Good News] which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!
It is extremely disconcerting to me that this glaringly problematic “scriptural” assertion has been blindly accepted for centuries. On the day when I was baptized by a non Trinitarian minister back in 1973, I had serious reservations about the procedure as I watched those being baptized ahead of me, among a sizable group of people—into the Trinity. I had not been able to confirm my suspicions about this scripture at that time, but I was bothered by this contradictory practice for 28 years before taking the appropriate action. I am indebted to Ploughman, now deceased, for his scholarly effort. He made a life long study of Matthew 28:19! He was quite passionate about exposing the fraud of early scribes. Were you baptized into apostasy?
To read historical statements confirming the fact that God was recognized as a Binity until Constantine forced a “reconsideration” see the cogwriter (outside link). Also, when last I checked, Wikipedia’s article on Binitarianism is an equally informative article which is as persuasive as it can be while still maintaining the necessary air of neutrality required of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia changes daily but for now I would surmise that the entire content was submitted by the same Binitarian.
Some scriptures are from the “New King James Version®, Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved.” “Bible text from the New King James Version® is not to be reproduced in copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, P.O. Box 141000, Nashville, TN 37214-1000.”
- Search for Ancient Deceptions articles similar to "Constantine wrote Matthew 28:19 into your Bible, Part 2".
- Search all articles similar to "Constantine wrote Matthew 28:19 into your Bible, Part 2".
- List more Ancient Deceptions articles.