|
Often
looked at to be one of the few texts that fully demonstrate the Trinity,
Matthew 28:19 is considered to be a primary proof text for spelling out
the Trinitarian doctrine. While the Trinitarian position will
fully acknowledge that the text does not speak of those mentioned within
the text as "one God," this does
not stop those holding to it as a central
proof of their doctrine. As such, we not only want to understand
this text for our own benefit, but we must understand it so as to
overturn the false reasoning of others. (2Cor. 10:5)
Just prior
to Jesus' return to heaven he spoke the words recorded at Matthew
28:19-20, presenting what has come to be known as the great commission.
It was a commission to preach what Jesus had taught and to baptize those
who came to accept those things. When they were to baptize, they were
to do it "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit." All too often the Greek word εις is translated as "in," though
here we note it to mean "into." Jamieson, Fausset and Brown note this
point too, stating: "It
should be, 'into the name'; as in 1 Corinthians 10.2, 'And were all
baptized unto (or rather ‘into’) Moses'; and Galatians 3.27,'For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ.'"
If we were to say
that Christians were to be baptized in the name of those three, it would
be understood that they would be baptized by the authority of those
ones. Yet this was not at all the meaning that Jesus had in mind.
Albert Barnes explains: "To be baptized in [εις, into] the name of the
Father, etc., is the same as to be baptized 'unto' the Father; as to
believe on the 'name' of Christ is the same as to believe 'on Christ,'
Jn i.12; ii.23; iii.18; 1 Co i.:13. To be baptized 'unto' anyone is
publicly to receive and adopt him as a religious teacher or lawgiver; to
receive his system of religion. Thus, the Jews were baptized 'unto
Moses,' 1 Co x.2. That is, they received the system that he taught; they
acknowledged him as their lawgiver and teacher."
In the baptism of
Matthew 28:19 we come
to recognize who/what the three are and accept their direction and
influence in our lives. We commit to follow whatever influence that
they put upon us. That this understanding is correct can be confirmed
in Romans 6:3, where we are not only said to be baptized "into Christ"
and also "into his death."
To be baptized into
Christ's death primarily means that we recognize his death for what it
is and accept the results of that death. His death carries for itself
an influence upon us, which is the forgiveness of our sins. The
Expositor's Greek Testament states: "The baptism in which we are united
to Christ and to His death is one in which we confess our faith, looking
to Him and His death."
Further, Gill notes that "they declare their faith in the death of
Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace,
pardon, righteousness, and atonement: now this proves, that such persons
are dead to sin, who are so baptized; for by the death of Christ, into
which they are baptized, they are justified from sin..."
Similarly, when we are
baptized "into Christ" we declare our faith in him and accept him as an
influence in our lives. We follow his commands as they are recorded in
Scripture and we dedicate ourselves to his service. To be baptized
into the Father would carry with it the same meaning. We place our
faith in him and dedicate ourselves to following his commands.
What about the Holy
Spirit? We have elsewhere argued that
the Holy Spirit is not a person,
and yet Trinitarian commentators have objected to such a possibility in
Matthew 28:19, stating that it is
unnatural for Jesus to connect the Holy Spirit with himself and the
Father in this baptism if it were not one. This is far from the case
though, for we recognize that the Holy Spirit plays an integral role in
our lives, guiding and directing us. It is God's influence upon us as
directed by Jesus Christ, and so it is by this that Jesus told his
apostles that he would be with them. (Mat. 28:20) We might
compare the text in question to 1 John 5:7-8, where the Trinitarian
would claim that the Spirit is a person, but that blood and water are
not. Indeed, it is no
less natural for the Holy Spirit to be an influence that we are baptized
into than it is for Jesus' death to be an event that we are baptized
into.
How though does the word
"name" factor into this text? Many have observed that the text refers
to the "name" of God, referring to the name Jehovah. They have argued
that all three are persons of Jehovah and so this is the name spoken
of. Yet it makes little sense to say that one is baptized into a
personal name. If the text were referring to them being baptized
by the authority of the three, then a personal name would be better
suited, but this is not at all the sense of the text.
The semantic range of the word
that is translated as "name" is fairly wide. Thayer's lexicon explains: "By
a usage chiefly Hebraistic the name is used for everything which the
name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is roused in the
mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i. e. for one's
rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds,
etc..."
There is much to the word that has nothing to do with a personal, proper
name.
Within Matthew 28:19 the most natural
understanding would be to take "name" to refer to each one's office.
This would include the functions that they perform. As to be
baptized into Christ is to recognize who he is and what he does while
accepting his influence upon our lives, to be baptized into his office
would carry with it a parallel sense. We would recognize his role
and accept his influence. We would do this of the Father and the Holy Spirit
as well.
It has been noted that the word "name" is in
the singular though, and by this it is argued that it is only one name.
Yet within Scripture we find the singular to be common, though referring
to the singular of each individual and not the collective. This can be
seen in Genesis 48:16, where we read of "the name of my fathers Abraham
and Isaac." It is also observed in Ruth 1:2, when it says
that "the
name of [Elimelech's] two sons were Mahlon and Chilion." Other such
texts include Deuteronomy 18:20 and Joshua 23:7.
At the most the use of the singular "name"
creates a unity of them in that their individual offices are in close
unity with each other. The Father's office naturally takes precedence, as the
creator of all things. (Rev. 4:11) We accept all that he commands.
This direction comes through the mediator, Jesus Christ. (1Tim. 2:5)
The mediator gives the direction by the power and authority he has been
given. This comes from God in the form of his own influence, which
Jesus commands and controls. This influence is known to us as the Holy
Spirit. (Acts 2:33) From the 1st century until now true Christians have
received this gift and it is the means by which we are directed. (Joh.
16:13)
Examining the grammar
alone, little can be derived from Matthew 28:19 in support of Trinitarian
theology. In fact, the text closely parallels Luke 9:26 in structure,
where we read of "his [Jesus'] glory, and of the Father and of the Holy
Angels." Comparing the structure
Matthew 28:19 to that of Luke 9:26,
the similarities are clearly noted.
τη δοξη | αυτου και |
του πατρος και | των άγιων αγγελος
the glory |
of Him and | of the Father and |
of the Holy Angels
το ονομα | του πατηρ
και | του υίος και | του άγιου πνευματος
the name |
of the Father and | of the Son and |
of the Holy Spirit
The parallel cannot
be overlooked or disregarded. The text of Matthew 28:19 no more
demonstrates a Triune God than the text of Luke 9:26, especially when
the latter would include angels in that God. In the case of Luke 9:26,
the text speaks of a glory that is unique to each. Matthew 28:19 uses
"name" in a similar way, though referring to an office unique to each
one. Thus, as the Expositor's Greek Testament explains, from this
text there "might be deduced the
idea of a Trinity constituting at the same time a Divine Unity. But
this would probably be reading more into the words than was intended."
Indeed, a careful study from the text demonstrates that no such idea was
ever intended.
|
