Matt 28 19 and A Hebrew Matthew
Matt 28 19 and A Hebrew Matthew
A Perry
Introduction
The triadic formula of Matt 28:19, ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ (KJV)
has been suspected1 by New Testament (NT) scholars because of its Trinitarian overtones, but not by
textual critics. A quick search on Google will produce websites and downloadable PDF files for and against
the originality of this formula. However, the main starting point for anyone’s investigation should be the
‘New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room’ of the University of Muenster, which will yield the academic
sources for the text-critical discussion along with the occasional NT commentator listed as well.2
Within text-critical scholarship, the modern classic (1901) statement raising the question of originality (and
voicing doubts) is that by F. C. Conybeare,3 but his doubts were soon ‘answered’ by E. Riggenbach4 in
German and J. Lebreton in French;5 and then in the English language journals by F. H. Chase6 (1905).
Thereafter, there has been a succession of papers, for and against, but the triadic formula has not been
dislodged from its position in the standard Greek text.
The first full-length thesis to set out the case for the originality of the triadic formula was that of B. H.
Cuneo,7 which in turn received a critical review from Conybeare.8 Within NT scholarship, throughout the
twentieth century, commentaries have lined up for and against, with those against usually preferring the
shorter variant ‘in my name’ (or just nothing) as original to Matthew.9 A variety of arguments have been
used in the ‘against corner’ with the evidence of the fourth century church historian, Eusebius (265-339
CE), being the main plank of the case; hence, the shorter reading is known as the ‘Eusebian’ reading.
In this paper, our objective is to set out the data for and against the originality of the triadic formula, which
we do in Section One. Whether it is original is a ‘balance of probabilities’ argument; it involves the textual
tradition, considerations of NT history, and questions of style.10 We will argue that it is original to Matthew.
1 Hence, O. Michel stated, τAdmittedly this missionary charge of Matthew is open to critical suspicions of
having been liturgically enlarged or worked over.υ τThe Conclusion of Matthew’s Gospelυ in The
Interpretation of Matthew (ed., G. Stanton; London: SPCK, 1983), 30-41 (34). This remark doesn’t imply that
he himself was suspicious. Or again, S. K. Wood observes, τScripture scholars are generally agreed that this
represents a later development of the text and clearly reflects a liturgical tradition already in place in the
Matthean community.υ in her essay τThe Trinity in the Liturgy, Sacraments, and Mysticismυ in The
Cambridge Companion to The Trinity (ed. P. C. Phan; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 381-397
(384).
2 http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/home. A search on the website for the conjectures about Matt 28:19 will
yield a table of scholars, papers and books for and against the genuineness (originality) of the triadic
formula.
3 F. C. Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19,υ ZNW 2 (1901): 275-288; τThree Early
[Online].
8 F. C. Conybeare, τThe Lord’s Command to Baptise, being No. V of the N. T. Studies of the Catholic
University of America by Bernard Henry Cuneo,υ JTS (1924): 191-197.
9 For a review of scholarship, see B. H. Green, τMatthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex orandiυ in The Making
Scripture’. B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford, OUP, 1993), doesn’t include the text.
1
Once we have settled that it is original to Matthew, and indeed the words of Jesus, we can enquire as to its
meaning. Is it incipient Trinitarianism? Why does Jesus associate the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit in
this way? Why is such an association rare in the NT writings and why does Jesus do it at the time of his
final ascension to heaven? These are questions we cover in Section Two of the essay.
Finally, in Section Three of the essay we will look at some objections to our interpretation.
Section One
Manuscript Evidence
Today’s standard Greek New Testament (GNT) does not offer ‘in my name’ as a variant for Matt 28:19,
but it did feature in the apparatus of the standard Greek text of the early part of the twentieth century ς
that of Nestlé. As B. H. Green notes, τThe Eusebian reading, after featuring in previous editions of Nestlé’s
Greek Testament from 1927 to 1963, disappeared from the apparatus in the Aland’s recension of 1979
(Nestlé-Aland26).υ1 It hadn’t featured in editions of GNT from the first 1966 edition onwards under the
lead editorship of K. Aland, and hence B. M. Metzger doesn’t discuss the variant in his commentary on the
GNT.2 With the recension of Nestlé under the leadership of Aland in 1979, and the effective merger of the
Nestlé and GNT editions, it disappeared.
The issue is a simple one. T. Wasserman has recently described the earliest papyri witnesses to the text of
Matthew and he documents the fact that Matt 28:19 does not occur in any of the early papyri up to the
mid-4th century CE.3 The manuscript evidence for the longer text of Matt 28:19 begins with era of the
Uncials in the late 4th century and it is ubiquitous. The older evidence for the shorter reading as well as the
longer reading comes from patristic citations, starting in the sub-Apostolic era up to and including the
Nicene Fathers and particularly Eusebius. The editors of GNT have generally given priority to the witness
of the manuscripts over patristic citation in determining the text of the New Testament, and hence they
have regarded the longer reading as original.
The question, though, is what we do with the patristic data as this is the oldest data we have for this text.
Here, we have data for both readings and we need to explain them in their patristic setting. Can we say
either is original to Matthew? If we decide that the shorter reading is original, why is this not reflected in
the later manuscripts? If the longer reading is original, why do we have the shorter reading at all? What
textual ‘story’ do we tell for both readings, or was there a combined text which the fathers cut and pasted
for their particular purposes?
The patristic data suggests ‘in my name’ existed in the manuscript traditions before the mid-4c., but the
total absence of any shorter reading in our extant manuscripts requires an explanation, and here various
hypotheses have been suggested. The explanation we will pursue is that the shorter reading is from a
Hebrew Matthew and the triadic reading is from a Greek Matthew. There are in effect two books and
not one; the Greek Matthew was widespread, and the Hebrew Matthew had already substantially fallen
away by the time of Eusebius. The two gospels are related by author, but the Greek Matthew is not an
1 Green, τMatthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex orandiυ, 138. For a history of the standard editions of the
Greek New Testaments and the relationship of the Nestle-Aland editions, see K. Aland and B, Aland, The
Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 20-36. J. Verheyden notes that the variant
appeared in ‘old’ Nestle from 1906 onwards and not just ‘new’ Nestle (1927 onwards) as Green implies, i.e.
just after Conybeare’s paper had appeared ς τThe Gospel Text of Eusebius of Caesareaυ in Philohistôr (eds.,
A. Schoors and P. Van Deun; Leuven: Peeters Press, 1994), 35-70 (69). The history of the Nestle is divided
into ‘old’ and ‘new’ periods in Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 20.
2 B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Society, 1971) ς commenting
J. Kruger; Oxford: OUP, 2014), 83-107 (86-87 has the table of manuscript contents). This is just
happenstance because what is missing is not just Matt 28:19 but various parts of Matthew. Only a conspiracy
theorist would say Jesus’ words were removed deliberately.
2
exact translation of the Hebrew Matthew but a derivative work (with Hebrew Matthew a source); they are
two gospels by the same author and hence equally authoritative. What motivates this hypothesis is the
evidence for the shorter reading and the need to explain the source of that reading. We cannot say that ‘in
my name’ is the church father summarising the triadic formula or that the triadic formula is expanding ‘in
my name’; both clauses have different functions.
Again, theoretically, we might suppose the readings were combined in an original single reading of ‘Go
make disciples in my name, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit’.
However, not only is there no manuscript evidence for this combined reading, there is no patristic evidence
either, and so we can reject this proposal. Apart from this though, the combination doesn’t cohere well
since a person becomes a disciple through baptism, and the ‘making’ and the ‘baptising’ would have
different name specifications in a combined reading ς invoking the authority of Jesus with the ‘in my name’
specification, and then nominating (or naming) disciples with the triadic formula in baptism.
Or again, we might suppose that the shorter reading is just the relevant church father missing out the
baptismal clause because he doesn’t need it for the point he wants to make clear. This explanation doesn’t
work because it’s not so much the absence of the baptismal clause from a shorter quotation but the presence
of the ‘in my name’ in the first place that requires explanation.
Finally, we might say that the ‘in my name’ has just been added by the relevant church father by way of
merging Matt 28:19 with Luke 24:47 or the general testimony of Acts. So, not only does the church father
miss out the triadic clause, he is doing harmless assimilation of scriptural texts through an addition. Again,
when we look at the actual texts of Eusebius, this hypothesis doesn’t provide a satisfactory explanation. We
cannot say that the shorter reading is Eusebius’ own expansion because he relies on it as Scripture.
The last two hypotheses are the most common ones in papers that defend the originality of the triadic
formula.1 However, the underlying assumption on the part of scholars is that ‘Matthew’ is one book and
we need to determine the original text (and for some conservative scholars, this will give the original words
of Jesus). Our competing hypothesis is that ‘Matthew’ was two books. We need to explain the origin of
both readings as separate texts; we cannot reduce one reading to the other or side-line the shorter reading.2
Eusebius’ Citations
Patristic citations may be from memory or a text; the text may be varied by the church father or be
identifiable as from a type of text known to textual critics; the writings of the church father may have been
altered later by copyists. Hence, in J. Verheyden’s review of scholarship on the Gospel text handled by
Eusebius he says τ…it is clear that the reconstruction of a Father’s Bible text can be a complex
undertaking.υ3
Eusebius of Caesarea had available to him an extensive (and recently restored) Christian library from which
he had access to Gospel texts. Jerome (c. 345-419 CE) mentions the library in connection with the Gospel
of Matthew,4
Matthew, also known as Levi, a tax-collector who became an apostle, was the first in Judea to
compose a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, on whose account those of the
circumcision believed, although it is not certain who later translated the Gospel into Greek. Indeed,
the Hebrew itself was diligently brought out by Pamphilus the Martyr and is still to this day in the
library of Caesarea. Vir. Ill. 3
1 For example, this is why the approaches of F. H. Chase and B. H. Cuneo are unsatisfactory; see below.
2 When evaluating patristic evidence for whether a text preserves the original of a NT writing, we have to
satisfy ourselves that a church father is quoting an actual text and not just doing his own thing with a text.
3 Verheyden, τThe Gospel Text of Eusebius of Caesareaυ, 45.
4 J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009),
28-37, discusses Jerome’s testimony. Jerome is merely repeating the testimony of Papias’ record by Eusebius
(Ecc. Hist. iii 39.16) that Matthew wrote his logia in Hebrew.
3
The point in this testimony is important for our assessment of Eusebius’ use of Matthew: it establishes the
background for his citing Matt 28:19 ς he had access to Hebrew and Greek texts of Matthew. Our
hypothesis immediately suggests itself: the shorter Matt 28:19 reading comes from the Hebrew and the
longer reading comes from the Greek. This would explain why only the triadic baptismal formula is found
in the later manuscript tradition. The more commonly used Greek manuscript tradition had always been
triadic, and it was only in the dusty libraries of Palestine and a Hebrew edition of Matthew that a shorter
reading was preserved.
Scholars tend to operate with a binary approach: either the long or the short reading is original to Matthew.
Hence, they argue for their preferred alternative. They explain how either the longer or shorter form is
secondary and later. The proffered explanations cancel each other out and don’t explain how Eusebius
could use both texts as authoritative Scripture. The better hypothesis is that both the Hebrew and the
Greek Matthew were regarded by him as Scripture.
Eusebius cites Matt 28:19 in his writings several times in the longer and shorter forms and we will first
describe texts with the short form.1
Shorter Form
Examples with (or alluding to) τGo ye and make disciples of all nations in my nameυ include,2
He said, τI have not come except to the lost sheep of the house of Israelυ [Mt. 15:24]. And he
exhorted his disciples to preach the gospel to them [the Jews] first, saying, τGo nowhere among the
Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israelυ
(Mt. 10:5-6]. Then after these [were evangelized] he commanded his disciples to preach the good
news to all nations in his name.4
The basis for seeing here an allusion to Matt 28:19 is, first, Eusebius refers to a situation where Jesus gave
a command (a speech act) and, secondly, he uses the expression ‘all nations’ (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) which is used in
Matt 28:19. However, Eusebius may also be alluding to Luke 24:47 where ‘all nations’ occurs along with ‘in
his name’. However, Luke uses the preposition epi whereas Eusebius quotes Matthew with en (and the triadic
formula uses eis) This makes it unlikely that Eusebius’ is conflating Matthew with Luke.
If Eusebius is running his allusions together, we cannot be certain he is using a short text of Matt 28:19,
although we should note that Luke 24:47 does not record a speech act of commanding. Nevertheless, E J
Hubbard is wrong to regard such allusiveness as an τinexact quoting of Scriptureυ;5 Eusebius may well have
been alluding to Scripture in exactly the manner he wanted, and this is the point. The use of a notion of
inexactitude doesn’t explain the use of a shorter Matthew text because we know Eusebius respects and
reveres Scripture. Obviously, we can’t say that Eusebius is alluding to ‘in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ inexactly with ‘in my name’; rather, he is likely using a short form of Matt
28:19 as well as alluding to Luke 24:47.
1 Green’s statistics for the two readings are: shorter (16 or which 3 are duplicates); longer (5); and for neither
(9); the ‘neither’ reading would be a use of Matthew where there is just a mention of going to all nations -
τMatthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex orandiυ, 125.
2 Cuneo, The Lord’s Command to Baptise, 41-41, tabulates the data.
3 The other examples of the short form in Eusebius’ commentaries are Commentary on the Psalms are Ps 65,
6; 67, 31-36; 76, 20; in his Commentary on Isaiah, 18, 2; 34, 16; see Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the
Text Matth. 28, 19,υ 276.
4 Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19,υ 275-276 gives the Greek text and this
translation is from B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of
Matthew 28:16-20 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1974), 155.
5 Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28:16-20, 156.
4
(2) History of the Church 3, 5,
But to teach their message they travelled into every land in the power of Christ, who had said to
them: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.’1
This is a clear quotation of Matt 28:19, and whether from memory or from sight, the question is what text
underlies the citation. This evidence provides a foundation for reading the ‘in his name’ in his commentary
on the Psalms 59, 9 (see above) as from a short Matt 28:19 rather than Luke 24:47. On the other hand, we
should bear in mind that a mind infused with Scripture is likely to allude to multiple texts.
Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the
word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, ‘Go ye, and make disciples of all
nations in my name.’2
This is another clear quotation. There is no reason why Eusebius should have not used the triadic formula
in making his point. The question is why he is using ‘in my name’. Is he quoting a short text of Matt 28:19
from a manuscript to which he has access?
What we can note from this example, and the previous one, is that ‘in my name’ is associated with the verb
‘to make disciples’ whereas the triadic formula is associated with the verb ‘to baptise’.
For he did not enjoin them ‘to make disciples of all nations’ simply and without qualification, but
with the essential addition ‘in his name.’ For so great was the virtue attaching to the 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. It was right therefore that he should emphasize the
virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from many, and therefore say to his apostles,
‘Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name’.3
…they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong
than man’s, and by cooperation of him who said to them: ‘Make disciples of all nations in my name.’4
This example demonstrates Eusebius’ exegetical interest in the actual text, so that we can be certain ‘in
my name’ is in a text he knows.5 The question is whether he is focussing on one part of a text which has a
following clause reading, ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’,
or whether he just has a short text with only ‘in my name’. As far as textual criticism goes, this would appear
to be undecidable. It is not enough to hypothesize with Cuneo that his argument had no need of the
baptismal clause and this explains its absence.6 The text-critical matter to be explained is the presence of ‘in
my name’ and not the absence of the baptismal clause. Hence, the same applies for Eusebius’ other citation
in Demonstratio 9.
1 Translation from Eusebius: The History of the Church (trans., G. A. Williamson; rev. ed., A. Louth; London:
Penguin, 1989).
2 Translation from NPNF2.
3 Translation from Conybeare, τThree Early Modifications of the Text of the Gospels,υ 105; the Greek text
is in Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19,υ 277.
4 Translation from Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew
28:16-20, 154; the Greek text is in Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19,υ 277.
5 Contra Chase, τThe Lord’s Command to Baptizeυ, 492, who wants us to believe that Eusebius adds in ‘in
my name’ of his own invention and then relies on the phrase in his argument.
6 Cuneo, The Lord’s Command to Baptise, 75.
5
At this point, an historical consideration can be suggested. What would Jesus have said? Could he just have
said ‘make disciples in my name’, to which Luke 24:47 gives support (along with Acts and Paul); or could
he have said, ‘make disciples in my name, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit’? Or, did he just say, ‘make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit’? These questions do not exhaust the situation: Jesus might have uttered his
command in the same conversational exchange in more than one way and at different points in that
exchange. We can often form a larger picture of Jesus’ conversations when we compare the Synoptic
Gospels, and a Hebrew Matthew and a Greek Matthew might have recorded two different parts of the
Great Commission. One part has an emphasis on ‘making’ and the other on ‘baptizing’. If this is the case,
our hypothesis of a Hebrew and a Greek text at Caesarea would explain mixed usage on the part of
Eusebius.
In any event, it seems clear that Eusebius has in mind just a short text (and as we will see below, he knows
the triadic text also) rather than a combined text. We do not need to agree with Eusebius’ exegesis,1 but
clearly Jesus’ name is central, and the actual presence of ‘in my name’ in his text is essential to his point; if
he had added ‘in my name’ as a gloss of his own, by way of summary or paraphrase, it would subvert the
point of quoting Jesus’ own words.2
For it was not that he ordered them simply and without discriminating, ‘to go and make disciples of
all peoples’, but with this important addition, that he said ‘in my name’…3
The observation to make here is the same as before: Eusebius is relying on reporting a speech act of
Jesus that is a command or order and his point rests on giving the correct words of that speech act. We
cannot explain his use of Scripture as one where he assimilates Matt 28:19 with the testimony of Mark,
Luke or Acts. For example, Luke 24:47 is not a speech act of commanding, but a third person description
by Jesus of what would happen to ‘the Christ’. Rather, we have to concede that Eusebius has a text with a
speech act of commanding that has ‘in my name’.
Longer Form
Eusebius also uses the longer reading in writings from later in his life (c. 336-340 CE). Conybeare makes
heavy weather of this fact, and argues Eusebius only uses the triadic formula after the trinitarian decision
of Nicea (325 CE). This is an implausible strategy to follow, and assuming these later writings are all
Eusebius’ hand, they show his respect for the triadic formula.
What was this Gospel? The same which our Saviour is said to have given to his disciples, when he
said to them: ‘Going make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ For he alone has favoured us with the grace of knowing the Holy
Trinity by means of the mystical regeneration…4
The reason for the use of the longer form of Matt 28:19 is clear; Eusebius is making a point about baptism
and knowing the Trinity. This trinitarian use of the baptismal formula of Matthew is common amongst the
church fathers, but it doesn’t mean that Jesus’ triadic formula is trinitarian. To establish Jesus’ meaning, we
just have to consider his teaching about the Father and the Spirit in his Upper Room discourse in John.
1 It is unclear whether Eusebius thinks ‘in my name’ is about authority or about something more mystical
ς incorporation into a name.
2 Contra Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28:16-20,
154.
3 Translation from Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19,υ 278; other example are
28:16-20, 157; see also Cuneo, The Lord’s Command to Baptise, 82.
6
Similarly, to appreciate how Jesus spoke of himself as ‘the Son’, we have to consider his teaching in John,
rather than the Synoptics. What Jesus is doing with the third person impersonal form of address, ‘the Son’,
is to create what will be the new structural relationship for a believer to relate to God, his father. It
is John, rather than the Synoptics, which brings out this teaching, but there are the occasional examples of
the teaching in the Synoptics like Matt 28:19.1 This teaching is not trinitarian because it is subordinationist;
the Son is subordinate to the Father and an intercessor between God and human beings.2
None of these spirits can be compared to the Comforting Spirit. Therefore this one alone is
comprised in the holy and thrice-blessed Trinity, as also our Lord in commanding his disciples to
administer baptism to all the nations who would believe in him did not order them to administer it
in any other way than by baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.3
The reason for the triadic formula is clear in this example: it functions as a proof text for the Trinity and
particularly the inclusion of the holy Spirit.
(3) Theophania 3, 8,
That at the outset he said that he would make them fishers of men, and in the end openly after his
example they should make disciples of all peoples together with his peculiar aid. From the Gospel
of Matthew, ‘…Go ye and make disciples of all peoples, and baptise them in the name of the Father
and Son and Holy Ghost…’4
This text in Theophania should be read alongside the earlier text at 5, 46, which has only the short form of
Matt 28:19. Together they acutely raise the question of what text or texts Eusebius is citing.
Accordingly, when our Saviour and Lord, Jesus, the Son of God, after his resurrection from the
dead, said to his disciples, ‘Going make disciples of all nations’, he added, ‘teaching them to keep all
that I have commanded you.’ He did not command them to teach the nations the Mosaic
observances…5
Eusebius’ quotation here has neither the triadic baptismal formula nor the ‘in my name’ expression because
his point is about the superior status of Jesus’ commands. Other examples of his use of Matt 28:19 in this
cut-down form and for this or similar reasons are his Demonstratio Evangelica 1, 4 and 6, as well as 3, 6-7; and
his Commentary on the Psalms, 46, 4 and 95, 3.6 However, what these examples do not tell us is what Eusebius
is cutting out in his citation ς whether the triadic clause of the ‘in my name’ expression ς or both.
1 In Matthew, Jesus usually speaks of himself in the third person with ‘the Son of Man’; the only other text
with ‘the Son’ is Matt 11:27.
2 Certain theologians have talked of an ‘economic Trinitarianism’ in relation to the New Testament, but
this is misleading and bad history-writing. Trinitarianism should be defined by the theological concerns of
the fourth century which were to define the ontology of the Godhead and the relationships of the Father,
Son and Spirit.
3 Translation from Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew
28:16-20, 157; see also Cuneo, The Lord’s Command to Baptise, 83.
4 Translation from Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19,υ 279.
5 My translation. The Greek text is in Conybeare, τThe Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19,υ 276;
7
(2) Ecclesiastical Theology 3, 3
For the Saviour said to his holy fountains: ‘Going make disciples of all nations’. Therefore it is
entirely clear that the holy Apostles are figuratively called fountains by the prophet [Solomon].1
This is an even shorter citation of Matthew, but the same point applies as with (1) -we can’t tell what is
missing.
Who, of those that ever existed, is the mortal man, …who bore all this pre-eminence…and could
effect so much, that he should be preached throughout the whole earth? And that his name should
fill the hearing and tongues of every people upon the face of the whole earth? But this no man has
done excepting our Saviour alone, who said to his disciples by word and fulfilled it be deed, ‘Go and
teach all peoples’ …
Eusebius does not use the ‘in my name’ expression here or the triadic clause, but his concern is with the
name of Christ being preached and we might have expected ‘in my name’ or the triadic clause (or both),
and so we don’t know what he is omitting. On the other hand, a very similar point almost word for word
is made in his On Praise of Constantine, 16, which does include ‘in my name’.2
These examples, (1) - (3), have led commentators to argue that Eusebius quotes Scripture inexactly. So, E.
J. Hubbard concludes, τHe clearly is capable of quoting the NT inexactly and of combining or at least
grouping in close proximity passages which in some way relate to each other. These tendencies of his argue
for the conclusion that the shorter reading is not based upon textual evidence, but represents a free use of
28:19 combined with ‘in my name’, a phrase widely used in the NT.υ3
Such tendencies exist in many of the church fathers (and Bible students down the ages), and the explanation
works for the omission of parts of a known verse. But we have no evidence that the triadic clause and ‘in
my name’ were ever present together in Matt 28:19 ς either in a manuscript or a patristic citation. And so, the
strategy of explaining the absence of either doesn’t work for our text ς what we need first is evidence of
their presence together. A notion of inexactitude may help explain the omission of something from a known
and established text, although the notion is being badly applied by the scholar (a notion of shortening is
more accurate), but it doesn’t explain the absence of things never found together when those things look
like competing alternatives.
For example, Chrysostom in his Homilies (NPNF) quotes the triadic form of Matt 28:19 in his exposition
of Heb 2:18, but in his exposition of Eph 2:10 he merely cites the text as τGo and make disciples of all
nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded youυ. This is no different from
Eusebius’ omission of the triadic formula in Demonstratio Evangelica 1, 3, cited above. We cannot infer on
this basis of omission that Chrysostom or Eusebius do not know the triadic formula. However, Eusebius’
singular use of ‘in my name’ cannot be described as an example of omitting the triadic name clause, because
it is not known that Matt 28:19 ever had both the triadic clause and ‘in my name’ together. The inclusion
of a shorter ‘name’ authority expression looks like a competing alternative to a ‘naming’ baptismal clause. It
is this that requires explanation, and any appeal to the common practice of omission is a red herring.4 Or
again, we might say that what we are trying to explain in the Eusebian data or the Patristic data is why there
is no combined reading.
8
Other Patristic Citations and Allusions
The longer and shorter forms of Matt 28:19 (as well as neither) are referenced through citation or allusion
in other patristic texts, but evidence of the use of or allusion to the shorter form is much more limited
than that of the longer form. We can take this as evidence for Greek Matthew superseding the Hebrew
Matthew because of the Gentile expansion of the church. We will first describe texts with the shorter form.
Shorter Form
(1) The Didache is usually dated around c. 100-150 CE,1 and it has evidence of the shorter text,
But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into
the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said, ‘Give not that which is holy to
the dogs’. Did. 9:52
This instruction about the Eucharist reflects the testimony of Acts ς that baptism was into or to (eis) the
name of the Lord. It states the rule the table of the Lord was not an ‘open’ one to those who had not been
baptised.
(2) Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) may allude to the shorter form of Matt 28:19,
Therefore, just as God did not inflict his anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so he
has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are
becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts,
each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ. Dialogue with Trypho 39 (c. 130-140
CE)3
The case here for an allusion to a short text of Matthew (‘in my name’) rests on the use of the same verb
for ‘make disciples’ (μαθητεύω), and to bring out the connection we could translate this text as ‘being made
disciples in the name of Christ’. We might dismiss this from being an allusion and see Justin’s language just
as a general description of the making of disciples based on his reading of Acts. However, Acts doesn’t use
the verb μαθητεύω in its examples of conversion and initiation, and it only uses the verb ‘to baptize’ (βαπτίζω)
in connection with the ‘in the name of’ formula. So, while ‘in the name of Christ’ could be picking up any
of ‘in my name’ (Matt 28:19, short text), ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ (Acts 2:38), ‘in the name of the Lord
Jesus’ (Acts 8:16; 19:5), or ‘in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48), the concept of ‘being made a disciple’ is
informed by Matthew’s gospel.4
Because, he said, all the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon
the name of the Son of God. Having, therefore, received the seal, they had one understanding and
one mind; and their faith became one, and their love one, and with the name they bore also the
spirits of the virgins. On this account the building of the tower became of one colour, bright as the
sun.5
1 See J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 324-327, who argues for a
date 40-60 CE. This is too early, and most scholars date the document c. 100-150 CE.
2 Translations of the Didache are from J. B. Lightfoot & J R Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (2nd ed: London:
Macmillan, 1926).
3 Translation from ANF; see Conybeare, τThree Early Modifications of the Text of the Gospels,υ 106, for
9
The possible allusion to a short form of Matt 28:19 here is even weaker than that of Justin Martyr. It rests
on the mention of ‘all the nations’ and the belief ‘upon the name of the Son of God’; but this is so general
as to be of no value in establishing a Hebrew Matthew with the short text.1
Longer Form
Examples of the use of the longer form of Matt 28:19 in the church fathers before Nicea are plentiful.
What they show is that we can’t really explain the long text as originating in a particular region such as West
rather than the East (which Conybeare suggested2). For example,
(1) The Didache also takes pride of place in the list of patristic testimony to the longer form.
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptise: having first recited all these things, baptise in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. But if thou hast not
living water, baptise in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast
neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit. Did. 7:1-3
This adds an additional option for baptism of pouring water in the absence of running water (a river), but
our interest is in its triadic formula fitting Greek Matthew. Of course, some scholars have suggested that
both Mathew and the Didache reflect later liturgical practice in the church rather than the words of Jesus.
But there is little value in just asserting that something has been interpolated when the only alleged problem
is that it doesn’t fit Jesus’ way of speaking or the examples in Acts.
It might be argued3 that Did. 7:1-3 is inconsistent with Did. 9:5, noted above, which only mentions ‘baptized
into the name of the Lord’, and it might be concluded that Did. 7:1-3 has had the triadic formula added.
But this observation of inconsistency could support our saying either of these parts of the Didache has been
interpolated, since we know that in the 3c. certain sects practised a singular baptism, and it was a matter of
controversy whether they were to be accepted without re-baptism. It would serve a purpose if an instruction
about the Eucharist was altered to accommodate sectarians just as it might serve a purpose to insert a
trinitarian clause into the instructions for baptism to support the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which
we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. First
Apology 61 (c. 160 CE)4
Given his use of the tradition of ‘making disciples in the name of Christ’ in his earlier writing, Dialogue with
Trypho (see above), we should ask whether he thought there was a need to reconcile the tradition of baptising
in the threefold name and the tradition of making disciples in the singular name. If scholars and
commentators in recent times have seen a tension, this does not mean that Justin or others in his era saw
one. The existence of both traditions in different Hebrew and Greek gospels by Matthew might not have
been an issue and the question of originality might not have been raised (in much the same way that the
Synoptic accounts were harmonized). Indeed, with Justin Martyr, the sub-apostolic church may have seen
a Hebrew and a Greek Matthew as equally authoritative and recording different aspects of the Great
Commission ς one with an emphasis on the command to make disciples and the other with an emphasis
on baptism.
1 Chase, τThe Lord’s Command to Baptizeυ, 490, reasonably concludes that this evidence can be τset
asideυ.
2 Verheyden, τThe Gospel Text of Eusebius of Caesareaυ, 69.
3 For example, F J Foakes Jackson & K. Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols; London: Macmillan,
1920), 1:336.
4 Translation from ANF and updated following Whittaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, 2.
10
(2) Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 CE) cites the longer form from a Gnostic heretic, Theodotus (c. 160
CE),
And to the apostles he gives the command. τGoing around preach ye and baptise those who believe
in the name of the father and son and holy spiritυ. Excerpta ex Theodoto 761
The interesting point about this example is that baptism using the triadic formula was not confined to just
those who would become orthodox, although as example (4) below shows, heretical groups also baptised
in the singular name.
(3) Tertullian (160-225 CE) uses the longer form twice and alludes to it once,
For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: τGo,υ he saith, τteach the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spiritυ. On
Baptism 13
Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, he commanded the eleven others, on his
departure to the Father, to τgo and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and
into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit. The Prescription Against Heretics 20
After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise
of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. Against Praxaeas 262
In the last two references, Tertullian does not include ‘in the name of’ as part of his usage of Matthew.
(4) Cyprian (early to mid 3c. CE, d. 258) uses the triadic formula several times and in particular it is deployed
by several attendees of the Seventh Council of Carthage (258 CE) which was held to pronounce that only
the church had the authority to carry out valid baptisms in the triune name. For example,
The Lord, when after his resurrection he sent forth his apostles, charges them, saying, τAll power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you.υ Epistles of Cyprian 243
This position was maintained against heretics who baptised only in the name of Jesus Christ, for example,
some of the Marcionites.4 What this shows for our purposes is that both the triadic formula and the singular
formula were in use in the third century by groups professing to follow Christ (orthodox or heretic).
However, this evidence doesn’t identify the basis for the singular approach to baptism that ‘heretics’ were
taking; we don’t know if they drew upon Matthew, or were just following the examples of Acts.
1 Translation from Conybeare, τThree Early Modifications of the Text of the Gospels,υ 106.
2 Translations from ANF; see Conybeare, τThree Early Modifications of the Text of the Gospels,υ 107,
for a discussion of the Latin.
3 Translation from ANF; see also letters 62 and 72 and the report of the council in ANF for the use of the
11
the gift of the holy Spiritυ. (Acts 2:38), he doesn’t record the form of words used upon baptism; they might
have been a triadic formula.
At some point in the sub-apostolic era the rite became more varied and some churches practised a three-
stage rite according to Justin Martyr. Whether we find the triadic formula intact in a text describing the
baptismal rite, those texts that just describe a three-fold rite are also evidence for the antiquity of the triadic
formula. However, the relationship of the triadic formula to the three-fold baptismal rite is not clear,
because an utterance of the triadic formula would be just as applicable in a single-step act of baptism,
whereas a three-stage baptism might require three utterances of the triadic formula or indeed break that
formula up into three parts. The historical data is set out by E. C. Whittaker.1 The question why this change
from apostolic practice occurred is beyond the scope of this paper.
Justin Martyr gives his reasoning for the threefold invocation of the names in his First Apology,
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born
without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad
habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of
ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the
remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again,
and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to
the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the
name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless
madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated
in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
and in the name of the holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who
is illuminated is washed. First Apology 612
The rite describes the utterance of the name of the Father during a procession to the laver, and the mention
of the names of Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit presumably also occur at this time in that procession but
the text is unclear.
Hence, the preponderance of evidence for the longer text of Matthew does not count against the originality
of the shorter reading. The problem we have is not to explain the longer text but to explain the existence
of the shorter reading and the absence of a combined reading. Does the patristic usage of a shorter form
of Matt 28:19 indicate that there was an actual text with the reading, or is it just down to the church father?
If there is a text, is this from a Greek or Hebrew manuscript tradition?
Eusebius’ writings are the main evidence for the short reading. The hypothesis that we have put forward is
that Eusebius knows the shorter text from an earlier Hebrew Matthew rather than the later Greek Matthew.
Other competing explanations of Eusebius’ use of a shorter text that have been put forward include:
(1) The church practised a ‘rule of secrecy’ which forbad the disclosure of formula and rites associated with
the sacraments such as baptism.3 It is hypothesised that Eusebius omitted the triadic baptismal formula in
12
keeping with this tradition. The problem with the hypothesis is that it doesn’t fit the nature of Eusebius’
material ς it is not for the wider populace, but for initiates.1 Rather, Eusebius is using a short form of Matt
28:19 because his point is about preaching and not baptism.
(2) Conybeare’s explanation is that τIt is evident that this [shorter form] 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.υ2 This argument places the origin of the longer form in the West, with
Eusebius encountering it from the western fathers at Constantinople. Conybeare’s argument is that
Eusebius only uses the triadic formula in his later writings and in trinitarian controversy and that this is
because he came to know of it in later life. This explanation seems implausible given Eusebius’ access to
an extensive Christian library, his experience of other churches on any travels in his early life, and his
interaction with those who would come to visit and use the library.3
(3) It has been observed that Eusebius quotes the longer form when he is talking about baptism and the
shorter text when baptism is not the focus but rather the authority of Christian preaching. This is fair
enough, but it doesn’t explain the existence of the ‘in my name’ clause, since we can’t explain the clause away
as Eusebius’ own gloss on the triadic formula (it has a different function).4 We might be tempted to see
Eusebius’ shortening and summarising Matthew, perhaps loosely saying that Eusebius quotes Matthew
inexactly, influenced by his knowledge of other Scripture. However, this seems too convenient a strategy
to explain away an uncomfortable fact.5 This might be a reasonable approach in an odd case, but Eusebius’
uses the shorter clause thirteen times as Scripture, and in some cases, he comments on the exact wording.
His use of Matt 28:18-20 always puts the shorter ‘in my name’ in the right sequence of that passage and this
points to usage of an actual text rather than his adding to a text. The evidence really points to Eusebius
knowing a text of Matthew with the shorter form of words.
(4) If Matthew is using an actual text, is this Hebrew or Greek? Is the short text from the Western text type
or the Alexandrian? Chase offers the hypothesis that Eusebius gets his short text from a Western text,6
observing that this text is known for adding clauses to the Gospels. However, the lack of evidence of such
a reading among the Fathers who quote Matt 28:18-20 from a Western text casts doubt on this Greek text-
type being the source. The rarity of the shorter reading is best explained as local to Palestine and a Hebrew
Matthew.
Without setting up (1) ς (4) above in order to knock down straw men, the hypothesis which we have
presented is that Eusebius had sight of an earlier Hebrew text of a gospel by Matthew with the shorter ‘in
my name’. He also knew of a Greek text of a gospel by Matthew with the longer clause. Jerome knows of
a translation of the former, but our existing Greek text of Matthew doesn’t look like a translation of a
Hebrew precursor. Given that we do not have a Hebrew Matthew, we cannot determine the precise
relationship with our Greek Matthew. We cannot say, for example, that Matthew did not write a Hebrew
gospel. It’s entirely possible that a Hebrew gospel by Matthew was translated (by whoever) and that it was
a different volume to the Greek gospel written by Matthew that has come down to us. Matthew may not
1 Riggenbach put forward the argument - „Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl“, 10-32; see Verheyden, τThe Gospel
Text of Eusebius of Caesareaυ, 69, for comment; Cuneo, The Lord’s Command to Baptise, 71, knows this
argument.
2 Conybeare, τThree Early Modifications of the Text of the Gospels,υ 105.
3 Caesarea was a Scriptorium where codices of the Scriptures were copied and distributed to churches; see
B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 7.
4 For this strategy see Chase, τThe Lord’s Command to Baptize,υ 486-487.
5 Cuneo, The Lord’s Command to Baptise, 95-110, follows this approach arguing that Eusebius quotes his text
of Matthew ‘inexactly’; see Verheyden, τThe Gospel Text of Eusebius of Caesareaυ, 69, for comment.
6 Chase, τThe Lord’s Command to Baptizeυ, 488. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 132-133, describes
the early evidence for a ‘Western’ text in the writings of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others.
13
have translated his Hebrew gospel, preferring to write a new gospel in Greek based on his earlier Hebrew
work.1
The two textual traditions had equal authority for Eusebius, but the preservation of a Hebrew Matthew
with a short clause as far as the fourth century doesn’t settle the question of what Jesus said upon the
occasion of the Great Commission. Here, we can hypothesize that Jesus instructed the apostles to make
disciples in his name, and as he developed the detail of the commission, he instructed them to baptise
individuals using the triadic formula. Matthew records different elements of the commission, as did the
now lost Hebrew Matthew. This hypothesis is no different from what we see in the different Synoptic
Gospels as they record different words for Jesus in the same conversational situation. Harmonies of the
Synoptic Gospels typically merge the records to produce an overall account.
Since both forms of Matt 28:19 are original to Matthew’s gospels, and represent Jesus’ words on the
occasion of the Great Commission, the reason why we only have the longer form in the manuscripts is
down to the apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew. This gospel superseded the Hebrew Matthew and
became canonical. Hence, it was copied. The Caesarean copies of the Hebrew Matthew were destroyed by
the Muslims when they destroyed the library (see Wikipedia), and any other copies have not survived.
Section Two
What does the triadic formula mean?
We can now turn to a consideration of what the triadic formula would have meant in Jesus’ teaching and
the first Jewish-Gentile Christian communities.
έ ὖ ἔ , ὐ ὄ ῦ κ ῦ
ῦκ ῦἁ ,
The preposition used in the commission is eis which often carries a sense of ‘to/into’, although this Greek
preposition casts a wide net with its range of meanings. It’s all a matter of seeing what vocabulary is being
used with the preposition when determining its meaning. Translations usually opt for ‘in’ with our text ς
‘in the name of’ but, for example, Heb 6:10 has been translated with ‘toward’: τFor God is not unjust so as
to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward his name, in having ministered and in still
ministering to the saintsυ (Heb 6:10 NASB).
The two most common suggestions made by scholars for this preposition in Matt 28:19 are that Jesus either
commands his disciples to baptise ‘in’ i.e. on the authority of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, or
he commands his disciples to baptise ‘into’ the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit.
Elsewhere in Matthew, Jesus speaks of those who act on his behalf or represent him in some way, but in
such cases Matthew uses the preposition epi, for example, τFor many shall come in (epi) my name, saying, I
am Christ; and shall deceive manyυ (Matt 24:5 KJV). Similarly, Mark uses epi for where the authority of
Christ is invoked, and/or someone is acting instead of Christ (e.g. Mark 9:39, 41). But the preposition en is
also used in this way as in Mark 16:17, τAnd these signs will accompany those who have believed: in (en)
1That authors might write in their first language and then in the lingua franca of the day is seen in Josephus
and the introduction to his The Wars of the Jews: τI have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live
under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly
composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; {b} I, Joseph, the son of
Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was
forced to be present at what was done afterward, [am the author of this work.] (War 1:3). On this question
see the discussion in J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 174-182.
14
my name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tonguesυ (NASB). The pattern is the same
for Luke and John and this makes the use of eis in Matt 28:19 stand out.
If we now consider the examples of Acts, the difficulty is a different one. Acts uses epi (Acts 2:38) and en
(Acts 10:48) as well as eis (Acts 8:16; 19:5) in relation to baptism. The difference between these examples is
that Acts 2:38 and 10:48 are speech acts; Acts 2:38 is an exhortation to individuals to be baptised in the
name of Christ, and Acts 10:48 is instructing others to baptise individuals in the name of Christ. In each
case, ‘in the name of’ expresses the authority for the baptism. In the case of Acts 8:16 and 19:5, however,
we have the narrator describing a baptism, what it was, and here we find that it was ‘to the name of the
Lord Jesus’. Obviously, the use of eis in these last two examples directly compares with Matt 28:19.
Paul’s teaching about baptism does not support the view that baptism was ‘into’ a name, whether that be
‘the name of the Lord Jesus’ or ‘the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit’. In Romans, he states, τOr do
you not know that all of us who have been baptized into (eis) Christ Jesus have been baptized into (eis) his
death?υ (Rom. 6:3 NASB). Here eis is construed as ‘into’ but it is not ‘into a name’ but into a person and
his death. Baptism into Christ places a person in Christ; the aspect of Christ into which an individual is
baptised is his death.1
It would seem then from Paul’s teaching that Matt 28:19 should not be construed as ‘into the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit’. Paul’s own remarks about baptising to his own name reinforce
this conclusion. He says, τHas Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you
baptized to (eis) the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that
no man should say you were baptized to (eis) my nameυ (1 Cor. 1:13-15). This brings out the sense of the
preposition eis but only as part of the whole expression: Paul is disavowing any claim to glory on his part
because individuals were not attached to his name in their baptism.
Returning now to Matt 28:19, what does Jesus mean by baptising to the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the holy Spirit? The type in Scripture to which he is alluding is that of building the temple:
Now set your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God; arise therefore, and build ye the
sanctuary of the Lord God, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and the holy vessels of
God, into the house that is to be built to the name of the Lord. (1 Chron 22:19 KJV); cf. 2 Chron
2:4; Jer 3:17; 7:14
Here we have an obvious principle about temples: they are not just a dwelling for a deity; they also give
glory to the deity, and are identified with that deity ς i.e. we have a temple of Yahweh. Jesus is quoting
Chronicles and ‘to the name of’ when he commands ‘baptising them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the holy Spirit’. In the same way that a temple was made for Yahweh, a disciple was made through
baptism for the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit.
The reason why Biblical unitarians are suspicious of the triadic formula in Matt 28:19 is that it ‘looks too
trinitarian’. What they fail to appreciate is the wider context of Jesus’ Passion week with the disciples and
his teaching in that week. This is mainly recorded by John and it particularly features the holy Spirit. So,
whereas reading Matthew alone can engender the impression that Matt 28:19 is out of place, reading the
Great Commission with the Gospel of John correctly contextualises Jesus’ last command.
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for
ever; 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. John 14:16-17 (KJV)
1 Baptism is described in terms of incorporation as in Gal 3:27, τFor as many of you as have been baptised
into (eis) Christυ. It is a mistake to equate incorporation into Christ with the baptism to (eis) the name of
Christ; contra Chase, τThe Lord’s Command to Baptise,υ 501.
15
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love
him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 14:23 (KJV)
But the Comforter, which is the holy Spirit, 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. John
14:26 (KJV)
Here Jesus teaches the disciples that he and his Father will make their ‘abode’ (μονή) with them; he also
teaches them that the holy Spirit will ‘dwell’ (μένω) with them.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Rom 8:9 (KJV)
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1 Cor 3:16
(KJV)
…for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them;
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2 Cor 6:16 (KJV)
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord…Eph 2:21
(KJV)
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and
I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new
Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new
name. Rev 3:12 (KJV)
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. Rev
21:22 (KJV)
What we see here is an association of temple and name, along with a teaching about the dwelling of God
with believers through the Spirit. Coupled with Jesus teaching in John about the coming of the holy Spirit
and his dwelling with the disciples, we have the key to unlock the meaning of the triadic formula: this is a
command to build the temple ς i.e. the temple that comprises believers is made through baptism and this
temple is to the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit.
What is the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit? Commentators talk of ‘the three-fold name’;
some discuss whether there is one name or three names. Again, Paul helps the exegesis. Jesus was given a
name above every name (Phil 2:9), and the highest name is that of ‘Yahweh’. A baptism to the name of the
Father and the Son is therefore entirely explicable. What of the holy Spirit ς why should the holy Spirit be
associated with the Father and the Son in terms of a name? Here the precedent is the giving of God’s name
to the Angel of the Presence (Exod 23:20-21; Isa 63:9). This angel mediated God’s presence in the
tabernacle and led Israel through the wilderness. The connection between the presence of God in a believer
and the holy Spirit is made by David (Ps 51:11). Hence, as well as vexing the Angel of the Lord at Meribah
(Ps 78:40), the people grieved the holy Spirit in Moses (Isa 63:10). Hence, Paul warns his converts to be
careful not to grieve the holy Spirit of God (Eph 4:30) and Peter questions Ananias and Saphira as to why
they had lied to the holy Spirit. Baptising believers to the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit is
about how the presence of the Father and the Son is mediated through the Spirit. Individually and
collectively, believers are named ‘of Yahweh’ (see Isa 55:13; 63:19) because they are a temple.
16
Section Three
Objections
We have set out the patristic data for the two textual traditions of Matt 28:19. New Testament scholars
operate with hypotheses about the development of Matthew in the first century. They have been suspicious
of the originality of the triadic formula whereas textual critics, working with the manuscripts handed down
to us, have not generally doubted the originality of the text. The sort of considerations that NT scholars
fuss over are internal to Matthew and more broadly the New Testament. They basically claim that ‘what we
know about Jesus’ pattern of speaking, Matthew’s audience and the history in Acts and Paul, counts against
the triadic formula as the genuine words of Jesus’. It is to these arguments that we now turn.
(1) That individuals might be baptised to the name of the Father is uncontroversial; that they might be
baptised to the name of the Father and of the Son is more innovative and distinctive within the context of
Second Temple Judaism. However, that Jesus might refer to himself as ‘the Son’ fits his language in John,
and this is the gospel which most often records Jesus’ close working relationship with ‘the Father’, for example,
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of
himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will
shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and
quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but
hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour
the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. John
5:19-23 (KJV)
Would evangelists and apostles have baptised to the name of the holy Spirit? Here, Jesus’ presentation of
the holy Spirit as a ‘Comforter’ or ‘Advocate’ or ‘Helper’ (translations vary) is a natural personification given
the operation of the Spirit through the apostles. Their authority was confirmed by their possession of the
Spirit. Hence, to lie to them was to lie to the holy Spirit. The dwelling of the holy Spirit with believers along
with the Father and the Son is the basis upon which believers are pictured as a temple, and so we can see
how apostles and evangelists would baptise to the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit.
We should not therefore discount the triadic formula on the grounds that it cannot have arisen in a first
century pre-dominantly Jewish setting. On the basis of what we have said so far, the triadic formula is
explicable as original to Jesus; we shouldn’t doubt it because it ‘looks trinitarian’. Indeed, when it is
explained by Acts and John, it doesn’t support the doctrine of the Trinity. The relationship between the
Father and the Son and the holy Spirit in those books is clearly not trinitarian (but unitarian and
subordinationist), but that is another paper. Suspecting the formula to be ‘trinitarian’ is anachronistic and
it is better to think of it as ‘triadic’.
(2) Mark 16:15-161 is the parallel ‘Great Commission’ to that of Matthew and it includes a reference to
baptism but without the triadic formula. Further, there is no reference to the ‘making’ of disciples nor a
reference to carrying this out in the name of Jesus. However, Mark doesn’t record the same occasion and
we have evidence with Matthew and Mark of a series of occasions in which Jesus gave a commission.2 Jesus
addressed the disciples on these occasions and from these talks, the two gospels pick out different aspects
of the commission; there is no reason to suppose that Jesus did not repeat himself in his talks with his
disciples when giving his commission, nor is there any reason to say that Jesus’ commission did not include
different emphases which Matthew and Mark record from separate occasions. We should distinguish the
circumstance and occasion of the commission from the content of the commission. There’s no reason in
Mark to doubt either the longer of the shorter text of Matthew; rather, Mark’s record shows that
commissioning the disciples was a repeated matter and with broad content.
1On the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 see N. P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark (Wipf & Stock, 2014).
2The narrative intent is to record a commission within the genre of presenting the earthly ministry of Jesus;
whether a mountain in Galilee (Matthew) or an urban setting (Mark and Luke).
17
(3) Likewise, Luke 24:47 records yet different words from an occasion of a commission. Here, Jesus does
not mention ‘making’ disciples nor baptizing them, but there was to be preaching ‘in his name’. We should
however note that Luke records Jesus’ mention of the disciples being endued with ‘power from on high’
which quotes Isa 32:15 and an expectation that this power would be the Spirit. This is important for our
deliberations because it shows that in commissioning the disciples Jesus does talk about the holy Spirit and
this supports a mention of the holy Spirit in a triadic formula by Jesus.
(4) The evidence of Acts and Paul, that the apostolic church baptised in the name of Jesus, has been taken
to imply that the triadic formula is late and not used by the apostles and evangelists in the early decades of
the church. However, the historical records we have do not report any form of words that was used in a
speech act of baptising, whether singular or triadic. This absence allows commentators to suppose that the
triadic formula is a later creation by Matthew or an editor and that we should infer a singular formula was
used in a baptismal speech act in the early church. But all sorts of speculation are possible, for example,
that the singular form was used for Jews in the early days and the triadic formula was used for Gentiles as
the church became dominated by non-Jews. Such speculation contains the seeds of its own defeat: it is
difficult to see how a triadic formula would gain traction if it was not rooted in Jesus’ words and accepted on
the basis of apostolic authority.
The point here is that the supposed new triadic formula would have to gain traction in a supposed context
where it was already the practice to baptise with the words ‘in the name of Christ’. The theology of the
triadic formula would need a catalyst other than Jesus’ original words, and the theology arising out of such
a catalyst would need to be superior to the theology of baptising in the name of Christ in order to get going
and be adopted. Furthermore, this catalyst cannot be late and situated in the third century with the
development of the doctrine of the Trinity, because the evidence for the triadic formula is earlier than that
development.
Contrawise, if the triadic formula is original to Jesus, along with the shorter commission in a Hebrew
Matthew, there isn’t a need for a catalyst or a superior theology. As the church progressively became more
Gentile and parted from Judaism, the Greek Matthew naturally got copied and distributed rather than an
older gospel.
(5) The shorter text certainly fits the flow of Matthew, τAll power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name…υ. However, equally, the longer text flows, ‘Going
therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of…’. Scholars might object to the
triadic formula on stylistic grounds and its use of a participle (‘baptising’) following on from a participle
(‘Going’), but the case that is made seems somewhat subjective. And the fact that Jesus has shown concern
on previous occasions with what is done in his name doesn’t necessarily count against the uniqueness of
the triadic formula because Jesus is uniquely instructing his disciples about baptism.
(6) The general pattern in Acts is that believers were baptised with the holy Spirit after conversion and
baptism with water. This seems to have been mainly through the laying on of hands (Acts 8) although the
Spirit could fall on individuals directly (Acts 10). There is no form of words or instruction about such a
baptism. Jesus states that the Father would send the holy Spirit in his name (John 14:26), but this may relate
to the bestowal of the Spirit at Pentecost rather than any procedure of the laying on of hands. We can’t
therefore argue by analogy that water baptism would only have been in Jesus’ name because the Spirit was
sent only in Jesus’ name.
The objections, (1) ς (6), attempt to show that the triadic formula is not original to Jesus and/or Matthew
on internal grounds of consistency with NT evidence which shows actions being done in the name of Jesus.
The principle is stated by Paul, τAnd whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord
Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Fatherυ (Col 3:17 NASB). Everything should be done on the
authority of Christ or as his representative, but since this is not the meaning of ‘baptising…to the name of’
in Matt 28:19, making believers into a temple for the name of God does not contradict the general principle
of doing things in the name of Jesus.
18
Conclusion
Modern English readers are used to literal and free versions of the Bible. This is not the explanation for
Eusebius’ texts of Matt 28:19. His writings show knowledge of two textual traditions, but we don’t need to
decide which is original to Matthew or which represents the original words of Jesus. These two binary
choices have structured scholarship, but the existence of a Hebrew and a Greek gospel written by Matthew
(the Hebrew now lost) is the best explanation of the existence of two traditions. The manuscripts naturally
represent the Greek Matthew, but the current GNT should reinstate a marginal variant for the text to
document the Eusebian reading. The patristic evidence for the shorter text is not evidence for a competing
reading of the original text of a Greek Matthew; it is evidence of an original Hebrew Matthew.
19