Chapter 31, Part 2 Preview: Were you immersed contrary to the Bible? 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 virtually every modern English version of the Bible, and has even eluded being discovered by sects that don’t teach that Elohim (God) is a Trinity. The question becomes: Does it matter whose name you were immersed into?
When we are immersed (baptized), do we “put on” the name of the Father, Son and kadosh (holy) spirit? No. Do we put on the name of Yeshua? Yes. When we are immersed in the name of Yeshua, according to all the immersion accounts recorded in the Bible, we are quite literally being immersed “into” the name of Yeshua, (I prefer to use the name that His friends, neighbors and family called Him rather than the evolved name Jesus).
No mention is made in the Bible of any immersion being related to the titles of Father, Son and kadosh spirit. Every actual account mentions a clear connection with the person of Yeshua, and His atoning ze’bak (sacrifice).
Did the Disciples, as they were implementing the “Great Commission” ever once immerse into the Trinity? Never! Did they immerse 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 tho, places the Apostles in rebellion, and makes all Apostolic immersions contrary to the inspired Words. If all of His Words are inspired—and they are—then we shouldn’t try to pit one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of Elohim’s Words 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!
What significance is mentioned in the Bible for immersing Commandment Keepers in the name of the Father, Son and kadosh spirit? None. What significance is conveyed toward being immersed in the name of Yeshua? First, the Bible teaches that immersion in the name of Yeshua is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Second, immersion in His name alone is associated with the promise of Yehovah’s kadosh spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, immersion in the name of Yeshua is compared to our personal willingness to be living ze’bakim, or even die with Him. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being immersed into the Messiah’s name is how we “put on” the Messiah (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, immersion in His name is called the “circumcision of the Messiah”, and reflects our “putting off” of the man of sin, and becoming a “new creature in our Messiah Yeshua.” (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Immersion in the name of Yeshua expresses faith in the physical life of Yeshua, the crucifixion of the Son of Yehovah for our sins, and the remission of sins thru His name. Trinitarian immersion can only express faith in Catholic theology itself.
Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the “New Testament”, rather, The Testimony of Yeshua 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 heralded 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 ... into all the world ... preach the gospel ... every creature ...immersed ... in My name...” (Mark 16:15-18) Of course, it is not immersion that “in My name” refers to here, but rather the works that the Disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, the similarity is striking, because even tho immersion isn’t explicitly mentioned there, Disciples should nevertheless be made “in My name”.
While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of Trinitarian immersion, 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:
“All authority has been given to Me” ...... “Yehovah’s Son, by power”
“So go” ...................................................... “and have been commissioned”
“Teach them to obey everything”............. “to bring about faithful obedience”
“in every nation” ........................................ “in every nation”
“in My name” ............................................. “in His name”
Colossians 3:17 And whatever you do, in speech or actions, do it in the name of our Master Yeshua Messiah, and give thanks thru Him to Yehovah the Father.
In this principle laid down by Paul, the implication is clear. The word “everything” would of certain necessity include immersion being 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. Yehovah’s Word doesn’t contradict itself; rather it compliments and completes itself. Paul not only expressed this principle, but he applied it specifically to the topic of immersion. In Acts 19:1-6 there is an account concerning John’s Disciples who had been immersed under his ministry. Like immersion in Yeshua’s name, John’s immersion was one of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38). John’s message that accompanied his immersion was that One would come after him who would “take away the sins of the world” and “immerse with the kadosh spirit”. Paul introduced these Disciples to that One, and applied the above principle when he re-immersed them.
And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings in Matthew 28:19, we see very strong support for the phrase “in My name”.
Sufficient evidence has been cited to enable you 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 as 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.
The very account that 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 churchin 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.
PS; There is another Biblical source that dismisses the Trinitarian formula of immersion, the Hebrew version of Matthew. The composite version compiled by Shem Tov and named after him is allegedly taken from an original Hebrew source. While Shem Tov, being Jewish, was against the teaching that 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 manuscripts that Shem Tov is said to have been using at least predates the Trinity theory, and therefore has no reference to a Trinitarian immersion. 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 couldn’t find a more serious and important symbolism in the Bible. The symbolic value of immersion in Matthew 28:19 is of no less importance than the Ark of the Covenant was in ancient Israel. Uzziah died when he touched it, and few would conclude that his motives were anything but commendable!
Every symbolic action required by Yehovah 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 (2ki13:19-25). The Passover Lamb had to be without blemish, just as Yeshua was, if a household was to be protected from death (Exodus 12:5). None of Yehovah’s rituals are without true meaning and consequences. When Yehovah speaks, it is done! Yeshua called Lazarus, and Lazarus arose! In matters of ritual, such as immersion and the Passover, we are dealing with Yehovah’s rituals, not man’s.
All man made rituals, no matter how well intentioned, when they deviate from the Bible are nothing more than unprofitable traditions when, “You reject the Word(s) of Aloha [God], because of the tradition that you hand down”. ... (Mark 7:13). Obedience to Yehovah’s commands, however, will always “cause” a desirable “effect”.
In the matter of establishing the original text of Matthew 28:19, it is certainly important to determine what is genuine and what is spurious in order to properly obey Yehovah’s command. After all, that is the essence of the introductory text from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 4:2 You must not add to or subtract from the Words that I’m giving you, in order to obey the Commandments of Yehovah your Elohim that I give you.
When we are obedient to the Commandments of Yehovah we can expect an eternal effect.
The kadishea (saints) were taught to anoint the sick “with oil in the name of our Master.” (James 5:14) The result would be “so that you can be healed”. When two or three gather together “in His name”, the result is that He is there with 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 or Christians in Colossi to “do everything in the name of our Master Yeshua the Messiah”.
In 1960, The British and Foreign Bible Society published a Greek Testimony, 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 Jesus”.
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 immersing “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the kadosh spirit”! Because of this far reaching implication we were forced to examine the internal evidence regarding immersion, 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 immersion. Tho immersion is not specifically mentioned in Matthew 28:19 or Luke 24:47, it is inferred by the following two points:
The command in Matthew is to “make Disciples in My name”. To make a disciple of necessity includes immersion 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, “a changed mind for the forgiveness of sins” would be heralded “in His name”. By the testimony of other verses (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38), it is clear that “remission of sins” comes thru “immersion” preceded by repentance. Both of these are to be heralded “in His name”.
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:/p>
“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 begun by Origen (185-254 AD). The wording of that statement by Jerome apparently meant that the original Manuscript of Matthew was still 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.
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’
In Bright’s book, mention is made of the fact that textual critics have been able to reproduce the 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 precious Text.
“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 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.)
Among all the above mentioned apostate beliefs, the Trinitarian phrase that later wormed its way into the text of Matthew 28:19, displacing the authentic words of Yeshua are found in the Didache. This is the source of the erroneous written teaching reflecting the practice of apostates in the second century.
After restoring the text of Matthew 28:19 to its original form, i.e., “So go and make disciples in every nation, IN MY NAME”, the following question naturally arises: “I was immersed in the name of the Father, Son and kadosh (holy) spirit/ghost. Since this is not Biblical, should I be re-immersed?” Rather than answer according to our own wisdom or bias, let’s find the answer to this important question in the Testimony of Yeshua itself, because that alone is the only true standard to measure our experience with Him. In Acts we find the answer:
Acts 19:1-6 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled thru the upper regions to Ephesus. He asked the disciples who he found there, 2 “Did you receive the kadosh spirit when you believed?” They replied, “We haven’t heard anything about a kadosh spirit.” 3 So he asked them, “Then what were you immersed into?” They replied, “John’s immersion.” 4 Paul told them, “John immersed people with an immersion for changing minds—he told them to believe in the One who was to come after him, namely, in Yeshua Messiah.” 5 After they heard this, they were immersed in the name of our Master Yeshua Messiah. 6 Paul laid his hand on them, and the kadosh spirit came on them, and they began speaking in different languages and prophesying.
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 Yehovah, and who had been immersed 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 eternal life for all mankind by becoming the very Lamb of Elohim, as John had heralded. Because of this, their immersion under the ministry and authority of John (who preceded Yeshua) didn’t reflect an association with the death and burial of Yeshua, that made immersion in His name effective.
While we respond to Yeshua’s “Good News”, they affirmed their belief by an immersion that only associated them with a doctrinal creed, rather than the atoning blood of Yeshua, that is only appropriated thru His name. For Paul, the next step was obvious. Knowing that the promise of the kadosh spirit was given to those who thru the obedience of faith had repented of their sins, and been immersed in the name of Yeshua, he instructed them to be re-immersed:
Acts 4:12 12 There is no salvation by any other man. There is no other name under Heaven given to humanity that leads to [eternal] life..
Was Paul mistaken? Or have we been? Certainly Paul wasn’t, because according to Yehovah’s promise, He laid hands on the people and they received the kadosh spirit only moments after being immersed in His name. Remember, immersion in the name of Yeshua expresses faith in the Incarnation, the authentic human life of Yeshua, the death of the Son of Yehovah on the cross for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. In summary, using the name of Yeshua in the immersion 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, immersion 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 that we teach, believe and obey.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 because I’m afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve with his chicanery, in a similar way your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity of the Messiah. 4 Because if someone had come to you heralding another Yeshua—who we hadn’t heralded, or you had received a different spirit than the one you received, or a different Good News than the one you have accepted, you would have been very persuaded!
It is extremely disconcerting to me that this glaringly problematic “Biblical” assertion has been blindly accepted for centuries. On the day when I was immersed by a non Trinitarian minister back in 1973 I had serious reservations about the procedure as I watched those being immersed ahead of me among a sizable group of people—into the Trinity. In fact I had just quit attending the church I grew up in immediately after they immersed me, because they failed to lay hands on me! I hadn’t been able to confirm my suspicions about this alleged passage at that time, but I was greatly bothered by this contradictory practice for over 28 years before taking the appropriate action. That appropriate action was having my own brother immerse me—just before I immersed him. After that day my brother and I both experienced a surge in Biblical understanding that has not slowed, after having asked for a double portion of the spirit!
Do you need someone with a funny gown or rank to immerse you?
It does NOT say “repent” (amend your ways), then find someone to approve, disapprove, or postpone your decision, before being immersed. On the Day of Pentecost, before there even were “ministers”, 3000 people were immersed without delay, no doubt by each other, because the kadosh spirit had just arrived that afternoon!
Acts 2:40-41 ‘Using’ many different ‘approaches’ he plead with them, “Escape from this crooked generation.” 41 Some of them eagerly accepted his teaching and were immersed. That very day about three thousand ‘people’ were added to the assembly.
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 the early scribes. Were you immersed into apostasy?
To read historical statements confirming the fact that Yehovah was recognized as a Binity until Constantine forced a “reconsideration”, see this link . Also, when last I checked, Wikipedia’s article on Binitarianism was an equally informative article that 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.
Eighty different Bibles omit the Trinity in Matthew 28:19! I’d like to think that many of the seventy-two Bibles that are dated after I posted “Constantine” had benefitted directly or second hand from reading this.
Chapter 32 is The Bible Never Mentions Sermons