The Secret Of The Mystery of Iniquity Revealed

What is regularly called the Greek New Testament is a text that does not come to us

directly from the hands of the apostles. Rather, it is a critical compilation of what scholars deem

manuscripts, scholars consult texts that are translated into other languages, church lectionaries,

and both allusions and citations of the New Testament found in the church fathers. Manuscripts

vary, of course, and sometimes a particular verse or set of verses may be included in one version

and not another, but there are only a very few biblical texts that are disputed, whose inclusion or

exclusion is in question. From a doctrinal standpoint, there are two biblical passages that get

specific treatment in books introducing a reader to textual criticism. The first one is 1 John 5:7;

the second is the passage that appears in the King James Version as the last twelve verses of

Markan text, however, is a different story, and there is more ancient evidence to support it.3

Page 2 of 23

Some have argued that since the Markan text is disputed, this puts into question doctrines held

by Pentecostals. After all, the words of Jesus in the Mark 16:17-18 prophesy:

“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out

devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 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.”

it should be.

Our concern in this paper, however, is a passage of Scripture not often considered to be in

question. It is the classic text found in Matthew 28:19. In terms of doctrinal importance, this

text arguably surpasses the Markan text, serving as a cornerstone in people’s conceptions about

God, also supplying what most deem to be the normative formula for baptism. Yet, when the

evidence for the inclusion of this Matthean text is examined closely, I believe it is found to be

with less evidence than the disputed ending of Mark. If this is the case, then there are certain

implications that should be drawn. We would suggest that questions should cause us to caution

in either constructing Trinitarian theology or making normative a Trinitarian baptismal formula.

While there are those within the ranks of the apostolic movement who have pointed out

the possible difficulty with the text, there seems always to be a certain reticence. This may well

be for a couple of reasons. First, there are those whose faith is directly in the King James

Version of the Bible. These do not understand that the KJV is itself a translation. Although it is

a good translation, this does not disallow a critical examination of its meaning and translation.

Page 3 of 23

Second, there are those within our movement who feel quite strongly that the Greek text

protected in the process of the transmission of its text. We do not want to affect anyone’s faith,

nor do we want to unnecessarily question what should not be questioned. But we should recall

there is not simply one Greek manuscript that makes up the TR, but that it is also a compilation

come today not as an expert but as a student. The interesting thing to me is if we can readily

discover academic sources that point to this particular conclusion, then it seems to me we are

compelled to explore and make known that which we have discovered.

On the face of it, Matthew 28:19 should not be considered as a variant, for there are no

early Greek manuscripts that have Matthew 28:19 without the inclusion of the words “in the

name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But there is another point that

should be considered. There is not a single manuscript in existence that includes the ending of

Matthew’s Gospel, prior to the fourth century Trinitarian Controversy. The best African Old

disputed ending, neither ending has manuscript evidence extant today before the fourth century! 7

Page 4 of 23

method, then, will be to take a critical look at the secondary manuscript evidence, utilizing

scholarly critiques of the material. While not every scholar should be given equal weight,

there is significant scholarly weight such that it should give us pause before coming to a firm

conclusion.

Second Century Evidence

The earliest possible evidence for the Trinitarian formula comes in the early second

that is to say, there are known and alleged recensions involved in both documents, and evidence

“written in a time of transition” where an unknown author sought to “harmonize and revered

traditions of the church with new ecclesial necessities.” Nor was the book intended to “regulate

there is an unevenness about the book. In chapter 7, there is instruction about baptism using a

trinitarian formula. The Didache 7 is at the earliest c.100 A.D. but could be later, and it is often

mentioned as being either a quote from, or the source of Matthew 28:19.10 Yet in chapter 9, the

Page 5 of 23

text clearly states of those baptized that they “have been baptized in the name of the Lord….”11

support of it. For instance, Eusebius of Caesarea, 265-340 A.D. while listing his Canon, speaks

about various other books that were in some circles highly esteemed and some disputed. But

Eusebius places The Didache in a category he calls “bastard” or “spurious!”13

As we suggested above, Ignatius also utilizes on one occasion the language of the Father,

understanding, cannot be demonstrated. Indeed, he does not have three persons in mind.15

Modalistic Monarchian;17 whatever else Ignatius is, he is not Trinitarian.

Page 6 of 23

The second century is important, not only for what it says, but for what it does not say as

paragraph 1, gives instructions for baptism. And while he speaks of a triune formula, he does not

quote Matthew! He then quotes John 3:3 and Isaiah 1:18 as his Scriptural authority for baptism.

Is it possible that Justin Martyr did not know of a verse containing the triune formula? In his

will be discussed below) He says, “God has not yet inflicted nor inflicts judgment, as knowing

abandoning the path of error, who also receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by

Martyr would have utilized it.

Historians’ Suspicions about Matthew 28:19

According to a number of historians, the weight of the historical evidence is against an

early application of a triune baptismal formula. Arthur McGiffert has noted,

There is no reference to the triune formula in the literature of the apostolic or subapostolic

age, except in Matthew 28:19, and in the Didache, chap. 7. While the

formula seems to have been in use by the end of the second century, but there

were many Christians even as late as the middle of the third up to the very end of

the fourth who refused to use it and insisted on baptizing in the name of Christ

alone, and their attitude is difficult to explain unless they were following an

earlier custom which the church at large had outgrown.19

Let us consider now the work of Hans Kosmola, a scholar who wrote about a half a

century ago, demonstrating that Eusebius knew a shorter formula than the norm for Matthew

Page 7 of 23

28:19. There are two reasons why Eusebius should not merely be utilized as a secondary source

but should be considered seriously. First, as we suggested above, there is no early manuscript

evidence of Matthew 28:19 in its longer form. Second, the standard Greek text utilized today

argues for or against the inclusion of specific phrases and words based upon attestation by the

different Greek, and 74 Latin Church Fathers. One of the most prominent Greek Church Fathers

is Eusebius of Caesarea. He is quoted or referenced 189 times in the UBS’s GNT. Eusebius is

cited 116 times in the Gospels alone. The single Gospel he is cited most is Matthew, with 47

citations. But in spite of the fact that within the writings of Eusebius there is a form of Matthew

28:19 significantly different from the traditional form, it is ironic to me that Eusebius is not cited

at this verse. One may well suspect that there is a doctrinal motivation to prevent this allimportant

text from being considered “disputed.”

Elsewhere I argue that hermeneutically, Matthew 28:19 as it stands in its immediate

context must point to a single name, the name of Jesus as being the correct hermeneutical

possibly disallowed, then the text should be approached tentatively for doctrinal support of

Trinitarian theology. We will now look at how Eusebius cited this verse most frequently in his

writings. We will provide it in Scriptural context so one may get the true feel for how it flows.

Hans Kosmola demonstrates that the verse as it is found in Eusebius makes considerable sense,

more so than it does as it appears in modern versions of the biblical text. As Kosmala says, “The

Page 8 of 23

foregoing does not, of course, intend to be ‘scientific proof’ that the original Gospel of Matthew

did not contain the Trinitarian baptism formula. Nobody can ‘prove’ this at the present stage.

Eusebian form, we find Matthew’s conclusion is reduced to four natural lines. The passage is

now a hymnic piece instead of a prose. Kosmala goes on to comment,

The Eusebian conclusion has a definitely poetical and almost elegant form. It is a

self-contained unit consisting of four lines. It is well-balanced in its structure and

the lines follow one after the other in a logical sequence; this cannot be said of the

traditional conclusion.22

This poetic hymn now points with greater directness to the One with “all power,” to “all

nations,” with “all” the “commands,” for “all the days!” Jesus! “And we are complete in Him!”

Col. 2:10. And “He is to have the preeminence in all things.” Col. 1:18. The one in whom “all

fullness dwells! Col. 2:9.

The question may then be asked, and indeed it is inferred by Arthur McGiffert as to when

this formula was changed. McGiffert writes, “From the simple formula, ‘into the name of Jesus

Christ’ the step is a long one to the formula, ‘into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of

the Holy Spirit.’”23 Indeed, the acceptance of such a formula was disputed for centuries.24

Motivation for change may be found in the need for biblical foundation for a developing church

doctrine. Just such a claim is offered by Bart Erhman. He argues that alterations were made to

limit the use of Scripture for: the Adoptionisic view, the Separationist view, the Docetic view,

Page 9 of 23

and the Patripassianist view. He writes, “Scribes occasionally altered words of their sacred texts

to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espouse

and did not make it into our text today, but the precedent has been established.

Textual critic Erberhard Nestle also had questions. He writes,

Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks without hesitation of ‘the

180). The vagueness of our conclusions with respect to these recensions does not

look very promising for the result of our investigation of the text prior to the time

of Origen, when activity in this field was more disconnected and might be said to

run wild and unrestrained. And there is this further difficulty that some writers

who fail to be considered in this period came in later times or less justly under the

imputation of heresy, with the consequence that the result of their labors were less

widely disseminated, if not deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like these

any attempted revision of the text must have been equally mischievous, whether it

preceded from the orthodox side or from the opposite. That there were d????? ta?

who were supposed to correct the text in the interest of orthodoxy we have

already learned from Epiphanius. Indeed, from our point of view the action of the

orthodox correctors must be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the

books without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange, and even

fantastic traits of language.” (Nestle, 191-192)

While Nestle and Zahn may not have made a direct reference to Matthew 28:19, when

viewed in light of scholarly opinion, one must consider it as possibly edited.

The Matthean text may have been one altered by church officials who imposed on the

text the doctrinal developments of the fourth century. For instance, Burgeon cites Hort, who

claimed, “…somewhere between 250-350 A.D. and edited revision of the N.T. text was made at

Antioch, and imposed on the Church there by ecclesiastical authority.” Burgeon goes on to note

that Hort “conjectured that Lucian (d. 312) may have been the leader in the first of these

Page 10 of 23

Spirit a person “stoutly denied that any text in the N.T. authorized such a co-ordination of the

Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius.”27

If there was something going on within the church and if later texts were added, then is it

not also possible that things were removed? While I offer this only as a point of conjecture, and

I do not claim any expertise in this area, I find it remarkable that the first two (and only two)

Greek manuscripts to omit the ending of Mark’s Gospel are also, believed to be the oldest or first

Grammatical Consideration

There is a certain awkwardness to the participial construction in the Greek text of

acknowledges that the two participles that follow the main verb (“baptizonte,” “baptizontes,”

“baptizing”; and “didaskonte,” “didaskontes,” “teaching”) “do not fit the normal pattern for

attendant circumstance participles, since they are present participles and follow the aorist main

ßapt ????t e? and d?d?s ???t e?, for the order should be the same as in Did. 7,1: ta?ta p??ta

Page 11 of 23

p??e?p??t e?, ßapt ?sate e?? t? ???μa t?? pat??? etc., i.e., the teaching should precede the

notes: “This (Eusebian form) shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage,

whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an

interpolation.”30

is “above every name.” This interpretation of the New Testament, and even Matthew 28:19 was

not lost to Eusebius. And while it may be disputed how Matthew concluded his Gospel, the

interpretation is clear. Eusebius was not content just to quote Matthew 28:19 as a wonderful,

poetic, hymnic, conclusion to Matthew’s Gospel. But let us observe the manner in which his

thoughts were directed from Matthew’s conclusion:

Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly he speaks

with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the

poorest of the poor : ’Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations.’ ‘But how,’

the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, ‘can we do it?’… But

while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus,

the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they

should triumph ‘IN MY NAME.’ For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely

'make disciples of all nations,' but with the necessary addition 'In My Name.' And

the power of His Name being so great, that the Apostle says: 'God has given him a

name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should

bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.' He

shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd, when He

said to His Disciples: 'Go, and make disciples of all nations in my name.32

A Trinitarian reading of Matthew 28:19 fails to explain how or in what way it is that there is a

Page 12 of 23

quotes Matthew 28:19 as “in my name.” Without the need of a great deal of thought, there is

only one form that fits more clearly with the overall interpretation of the Bible! It is clearly “in

my name!”

Conclusion:

We have demonstrated historically that there is considerable evidence for the omission of

a trinitarian formula at the end of Matthews Gospel. While we have cited Scriptural and

hermeneutical evidence for the importance of the centrality of the name of Jesus elsewhere, it

would be remiss not to end with a return to the biblical text. It is evident that all of the New

Testament speaks of the importance of Jesus name and includes it with baptism. Thus, one must

wonder about the originality of Matthew 28:19 in light of the words of Paul: “1 Corinthians 1:13

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” The

text confirms what Acts records as well, that Paul baptized in the name of the one who was

crucified for them, the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 19:5. If Jesus had issued the command to

baptize in Matthew’s Gospel—surely if he had issued a command to baptize in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then surely Paul would have felt inclined to obey it! But, as we

have argued throughout, Matthew 28:19, is a disputed text, one for which there is much doubt.

Most scholars agree that it “would be wise not to base a message or a point primarily on a

as a reference to the name of Jesus, its likely status as a text that has been manipulated should be

considered prior to the question as to how to interpret it. Perhaps we should leave well enough

alone and not trouble people’s faith with textual critical questions. It might well be enough to

harmonize the text with the clearly stated general truth of the New Testament teaching. Still, are

Page 13 of 23

we not, as stewards of the gifts that God has given us, compelled to study, discern and teach

what we can glean from such study? These are the questions that this disputed text raise to me.

A brief recap reveals:

For the shorter form

· Patristic quotes of Eusebius

· Form Criticism

· Hermeneutical Findings

· Patristic evidence that the text was not yet fixed or set, and close allusions

· Lack of Manuscript and Versional evidence of this verse prior to the 4th century

· Evidence that there was a change in practice, indicated by the controversy

· Evidence of the orthodox influence of Scribes on the text

For the Traditional form

· Patristic evidence

· Eusebius, at times quoted inexactly

· Manuscript evidence

The panel may now offer their comments and recommendations on what at least I feel is,

compelling evidence for classifying Matthew 28:19 as a disputed ending of a Gospel!