What about Matthew 28:19?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, 2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 28:18, Matthew 28:20, Deuteronomy 6:4, John 14, Galatians 4:4, Genesis 1:2, Acts 4:12, Philippians 2:9-11, Mark 16, Luke 24, Luke 24:47, Colossians 2:9, Acts 22:16, Acts 2:42

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--what-about-matthew-28-19
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
that's a very important question and for those of you who want to study further I have a small book called in the name of Jesus and I devote a chapter to that very question also I have a book called Understanding God's word which gives you some principles of interpretation and I'm gonna and explains why these principles are valid and how they come from scripture itself and I will use those principles in my answer here today so uh but first of all let's just say this sometimes people will say well I would rather take the words of Jesus than the words of Peter Well if that's a mistaken argument from the beginning because we believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God second Timothy 3 16.

and if you want to be practical about it Jesus didn't write any of this personally so in Matthew we have Matthew writing and all the 12 apostles were there hearing the words of Jesus in Acts you have Peter preaching but Luke is the one who recorded it again you have all 12 Apostles there so if Peter had been mistaken in what he said on the day of Pentecost Matthew was right there and was standing with him supporting his message so Matthew should have said wait a minute Peter you you got it wrong you know uh let's fix this also if you look at historically the gospel of Matthew even by the most conservative authors uh was not written until probably the ad60s so whereas the day of Pentecost the events occurred around A.D 30.

so in the book of Acts you had the early church baptizing for many years in the name of Jesus Christ before the gospel of Matthew was ever written or disseminated so in a historical sense it would have actually been the other way around people all their lives would have been baptizing and have been baptized in Jesus name but have grown up in church and then suddenly this gospel starts getting circulated maybe in the 70s 80s 90s they would say wait a minute that's not what we believe so so actually you you would say that the the events and acts would have been disseminated first before the record of of Matthew so my point is there's not to disparage Matthew at all but to say we have to look at both the gospel of Matthew and the book of Acts together and find Harmony now we do believe that since all scripture is given by inspiration of God all of it's true all of it is in Harmony and we're not looking for a contradiction uh so with that in mind uh let's take a look at Matthew chapter 28 what is actually going on here okay one of the first things that you would look at is the context that's a basic principle of interpretation you never take a a statement description isolation and try to figure out what it means without considering the total context so in the immediate context Jesus says in Matthew 28 18 all power is given unto me in heaven and earth you know as God manifests in the flesh he was uh authorized by the spirit to do what he was doing and now he was sharing that authorization to preach the gospel with his disciples because he was soon to be gone so in verse 19 the key verse that you're looking at Matthew 28 and 19 he says go ye therefore in other words notice that therefore because I have all power I'm sending you go you therefore and teach All Nations and actually the the Greek word that is translated teach in the King James means to make disciples as other translations bring out so he's really saying Go Make Disciples then he says baptize them and then in verse 20 he comes out he'll be back teaching them now here is the ongoing process of discipleship teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and I will be with you always even to the end of the world now that's the context so which makes more sense is Jesus saying I have all power since I have all power I'm sending you I want you to make disciples unto me I want you to teach them all my Commandments and I'm going to be with you in spirit obviously I will be with you therefore baptize in the name of three different persons that doesn't even fit the context but what fits the context is what we see in Acts I have all power since I have all power I'm sending you make disciples unto me teach them my Commandments I'll be with you baptized in my name that's contextual the second thing we look at is the background and that is and this would be when I said context that's the literary context that's the immediate context of the passage but background is kind of the larger social context who's who's uh historical context who's speaking who they're speaking to uh what could the people there have known and understood what was the speaker trying to convey so if you look at the background theologically and and historically the doctrine of the Trinity as such had never been taught the terms three persons Trinity as related to the godhead didn't actually come into play until about A.D 200.

so it would have been so while weep to us this may seem like a stumbling block Father Son and Holy Spirit why would he mention three different persons well that question would have never come into the minds of the people actually listening the apostles nor would have come to the mind of Matthew's original audience the early church they never heard of three persons they never heard of a trinity so while we because of 20 centuries of tradition and Creeds and councils when we hear the terms father Son and Holy Spirit we jump to or is he talking about the Trinity they would have never thought that way because there's there were never was teaching of a trinity or three persons instead the context all of those early the certainly the disciples and the original Church they were Jewish and their Foundation was Deuteronomy 6 4.

hear o Israel the Lord our God is one Lord now the Old Testament does speak of God as father and Jesus in um you know in his ministry spoke of God as his father because he was as a human being he was the son of God literally um he wasn't born of uh he was born of a Virgin Mary but he wasn't born of any human father instead the spirit of God miraculously caused his conception so in a very real sense God was his father and he was also modeling a relationship that we as humans should have with God as our heavenly father so father is as a term of the one God in relationship to us and so when he said father the the the disciples went and said that's God the one God Of Heaven but they would have also remembered what he told him a few days earlier in John 14.

the father dwells in me if you've seen me you've seen the father so they would have understood it's in some way that Jesus was the visible manifestation of the invisible father then of course the son Jesus is the son of God that relates to God being manifest In the Flesh the term Son of God always relates to the Incarnation to the manifestation to the human personification of God whom Jesus was and Galatians 4 4 for example the son was made of a woman made under the law the son is the visible image of the invisible God and then Holy Spirit what could they have known well the Old Testament speaks of God's spirit is God spirit is active in creation God's spirit is active in the lives of people um they had not yet received the Holy Ghost in Matthew but they were promised that the spirit would come so they would have thought of the Holy Spirit as God in his personal presence his personal action the very first mention the spirit of God in Genesis 1 2 the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters so what would they have instinctively known and and this is described a great length by the way in my book The Oneness of God they would have thought of the father as the one true God the son and and more specifically Jesus had just told him them the father dwells in me and I'm the visible manifestation of the invisible father Son of God they would have thought well that's Jesus that the real man who's anointed by God the Holy Spirit that's God's presence that's God's action that's God himself working again John 14 a few days ago Jesus had told them the holy spirit is going to come and uh you know he explained John 14 through 16 I'm going to go away but I will send the comfort of the Holy Spirit but you you already know him because he's with you but he shall be in you I will not leave you comfortless I will come to you so he's trying to prepare them for this different experience of the spirit where he's going to be gone but the spirit will come but then he explains it's really not a different entity it's another form it's another experience it's a different manifestation but I'm but you already know him because he's with you so in other words Jesus is saying the holy spirit will be my spirit I'll be gone so it'll seem like a totally different experience but when you receive the Holy Spirit you'll understand I'm coming back and I'm remaining with you I will be with you so what they would have known from the theological and historical context father son Holy Spirit refers to the one God who has been revealed in Jesus Christ third thing we look at is the grammar he said baptizing in the name that's singular so not three different names of three persons but one name that represents the fullness of God and we also should note that there's a difference when the name and a title if if I say father that's a generic title I'm a father you're a father many people have been called father but how do we identify if you want to talk about me exclusively if you say father well that could be any number of men who happen to be in the room but if you say David Bernard that's me now I suppose there are other David Bernards in the world so you can have a title like you know Pastor Bernard you know General Bernard so you could use a title to narrow down the reference but the point is the name is unique so father son and spirit are not names but titles so there is an implication here that we're looking for one name that would represent God's titles and manifestations and of course we know from acts 4 12 that the only saving name is the name of Jesus so it's interesting I've asked trinitarians different times because the trinitarians will usually say yes the name is one because they want to say there's one God not three Gods so they don't want to really say three different names they want to say one name so I say what is the one name and many of them will say well it's God and I'll say well that's generic you know pagans could say they believe in God how can that be the the identifying name in which you want to be baptized so then some will say well it's Yahweh Jehovah and I will say well if you're in the Old Testament that's true that would be the highest name given that's the personal name the unique Name by which God distinguished himself from all the false gods but in the New Testament that name has been superseded by the name of Jesus which means Jehovah's savior or Yahweh savior so it doesn't deny the name of Yahweh but it adds to it the greatest revelation of all and that's why the name of Jesus acts 4 12 said says is the name of Salvation because the name of Jesus means Jehovah Savior and of course Philippians 2 9-11 indicates the name that's been above every name is the name of Jesus and that's the name to which every knee shall bow on every tongue shall confess so if you agree that there's one name then you'll understand that God or father or son or Spirit are not the identifying names but in the New Covenant it would be the name of Jesus okay now another thing we look at in as a principle of interpretation is parallel passage of scripture so what we have here in Matthew 28 19 is what is often called the Great Commission but Mark and Luke also have the Great Commission in different terms so in Mark's gospel Mark 16 it says he Jesus gives the equivalent command to go to all the world to preach the gospel Every Creature he mentions baptism he that believes is baptized shall be saved but then he goes on to say in my name you're going to cast out demons speak in tongues heal the sick and so forth and so his abiding presence will be them with them so you see a parallel in both Matthew and Mark is speaking of preaching the gospel to everyone making converts baptizing them God's presence will be with him but the name that submission Mark in my name Jesus says okay Luke 24 also has an account of the Great Commission where Jesus says go to Jerusalem and from there you will preach repentance and remission of sins and then he says wait for the promise of the father so again we have a parallel it's talking about going and preaching while Luke doesn't explicitly mention baptism he mentions instead repentance and remission of sins which echoing Acts 2 38 we know baptism is involved with that and then he talks about the power that's going to come from God so the presence of God so there's a parallel but in Luke 24 he says repentance and remission of sins will be preached in and Luke records in his name beginning at Jerusalem acts 24 47 so in the three Great Commission accounts they're all obviously parallel parallel but stated in different phrases what would be the common name Matthew name of the father Son and Holy Ghost mark my name Luke his name well the only name that fits all three descriptions simultaneously is the name of Jesus and when you understand according to Colossians 2 9 in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily then you can easily understand if you had to choose one name that represents the fullness of God the represented God's Redemptive manifestations father Son and Holy Spirit it would be the name of Jesus now that's the parallel accounts now look at the Fulfillment when you look at the Fulfillment in the book of Acts there are five places where a name is mentioned as part of the baptismal formula in every case the identifying name is the name of Jesus so Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ without exception and it's interesting trinitarian Scholars used to try to dispute that in the past by saying well to be baptized in Jesus name just means to use his authority but it's universally recognized by Church historians number one and New Testament Scholars number two including trinitarians that the Greek of Acts is very specific and I go through quite a bit of detail my little book The New Birth not the new birth but in the name of Jesus that it the the five accounts and acts actually say the name of Jesus Christ was orally invoked at the time of baptism you see this in Acts 22 16 where ananias tells Saul of Tarsus later the Apostle Paul arise and wash away your sins calling literally invoking the name of the Lord or his his name the name of Jesus and then you also have have a dozen accounts in the Epistles that all speak of the name of Jesus being buried with Christ being baptized into Christ um you know it's obvious they're referring to taking on the name of Jesus uh in water baptism the name is invoked so you have this consistent witness of the entire New Testament from the historical accounts that are very specific in the book of Acts to the theological references in the Epistles all is the name of Jesus so much so as I just mentioned there's a consensus of Scholars of all Persuasions from very conservative to very liberal and even non-Christian that the original baptismal formula always featured the name of Jesus Christ the lord Jesus or Jesus Christ in fact there's a entire scholarly book written by large Hartman into the name of the Lord Jesus that makes this case at Great length from a historical uh and Theological perspective so with all of that in mind then we ask the question Jesus gave this command to The Twelve Apostles directly not us directly they were able to question him they had heard him for three years they understood the context if they didn't understand they had the ability on the spot to ask questions so they understood his command to mean invoke the name of Jesus because that's what they actually did so how can we 2000 years later say we have a better understanding than they to the contrary we should do it at we should understand Jesus words the way they did and we should fulfill Jesus words the way they did because they are in an authoritative position to do so and in fact Acts 2 42 the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles Doctrine and fellowship that's the way the New Testament Church was established Matthew 28 20.

Jesus set up the church this way teach your converts all the things that I've commanded them so Jesus explicitly said you established the church you make disciples you teach them my commands so when we do what the apostles did when we follow the apostles example we're actually doing what Jesus said we should do in establishing the church so for all these reasons I think contextually historically we see that Jesus was referring to baptizing in his name and that's why the apostles did it that way and that's why we should do it that way