What about Matthew 28:19?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

No contradiction — inspiration, and the historical order

• The question posed (in the host's frame): the believers the question speaks for frequently quote Acts 2:38, where Peter commanded his listeners, to be baptized — every one of you — in the name of Jesus Christ. We also point out, very frequently, that every baptism that was recorded, in the book of Acts, was done in the name of Jesus. The problem — at least for some — is that the words of Jesus seem to contradict the book of Acts. I'm talking specifically about Matthew 28:19, where Jesus told his disciples: go ye therefore, and teach All Nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost. How do we reconcile what Jesus said, in Matthew, with what happened, in the book of Acts? The answer: 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 (as titled in the answer), and I devote a chapter to that very question. Also, I have a book called Understanding God's word (as titled), 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, 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 — that's a mistaken argument, from the beginning. Because we believe: all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Second Timothy 3:16 (as he cites it). 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 got it wrong, you know. Let's fix this. Also: if you look at, historically: the gospel of Matthew — even by the most conservative authors — was not written until probably the ad60s (as the letters carry the decade). So: whereas the day of Pentecost — the events occurred around A.D 30 (as given). 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 actually, you would say that the events in Acts would have been disseminated first, before the record of Matthew. So my point is: there's not — 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.

Scriptures: Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; 2 Timothy 3:16

Context — all power, make disciples, baptize in my name

• So, with that in mind: 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 statement, in isolation ('a statement description isolation', as the letters stand), 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 manifest in the flesh, he was 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 28:19 (in its own place, in the first section) — 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 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.

Scriptures: Matthew 28:18; Matthew 28:20

Background — what the first hearers would have understood

• 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? 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 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 (as given). So it would have been — so while, 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 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 his ministry, spoke of God, as his father. Because he was — as a human being — he was the son of God. Literally. He wasn't born of — 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 a term of the one God, in relationship to us. And so when he said father, the disciples went and said: that's God. The one God Of Heaven. But they would have also remembered what he told them, 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's spirit is active, in creation. God's spirit is active, in the lives of people. 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 this is described at great length, by the way, in my book The Oneness of God (as titled): they would have thought of the father, as the one true God. The son — and more specifically: Jesus had just told 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, through 16 (the span as he next designates it: 'he explained John 14 through 16'): a few days ago, Jesus had told them, the holy spirit is going to come. And, you know, he explained: I'm going to go away, but I will send the comfort — of the Holy Spirit (as the noun stands in the letters). But 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.

Scriptures: Deuteronomy 6:4; John 14; Galatians 4:4; Genesis 1:2; John 14-16

Grammar — in the name, singular; titles are not names

• 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 — between — the name, and a title. 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 (as the examples run). 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 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, and — 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.

Scriptures: Acts 4:12; Philippians 2:9-11

Parallel accounts, and the fulfillment in Acts

• 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 (in its own place, in the first section), 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 (as the scope stands). He mentions baptism: he that believes and is baptized shall be saved ('he that believes is baptized shall be saved', as the sentence stands in the letters). 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 with them ('will be them with them', as the letters stand). 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 — with them. But the name that Mark mentions ('the name that submission Mark in my name', as the letters stand): 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 (in its own place, in the first section), 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', as the citation stands in the letters — the passage under discussion being Luke's; see the record's refs note.) So: in the three Great Commission accounts, they're all obviously 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 — that 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, in my little book — in the name of Jesus (as titled in the first section) — that the five accounts in 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 name. The name of Jesus. And then, you also have a dozen accounts, in the Epistles, that all speak of the name of Jesus: being buried with Christ; being baptized into Christ. You know: it's obvious, they're referring to taking on the name of Jesus, 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 Hartman ('large Hartman', as the name stands in the letters) — into the name of the Lord Jesus (as titled, in substance) — that makes this case at Great length, from a historical, 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 — 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 (in its own place, in the second section): 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.

Scriptures: Mark 16; Luke 24; Luke 24:47; Colossians 2:9; Acts 22:16; Acts 2:42

Scripture index: 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; John 14-16; Acts 4:12; Philippians 2:9-11; Mark 16; Luke 24; Luke 24:47; Colossians 2:9; Acts 22:16; Acts 2:42.