Indelible Grace: From the Depths of Woe (Psalm 130)

3 Responses to Indelible Grace: From the Depths of Woe (Psalm 130)

1. Alexander Forsyth says:

   August 12, 2015 at 12:40 am

   Baptism in the Name(s) of Matthew 28:19
   The “Formula” used in the Book of Acts is in the “Name of Jesus” or the
   “Name of the Lord”.
   Did the church of Rome/the Papacy insert the ‘threefold Formula’?
2. Dwight says:

   August 12, 2015 at 8:19 am

   There was probably a confession of some sort that Jesus was the Son of God and savior or at least an understanding of that, which is based on Acts 8 where Phillip ba[ptized the Ethiopian eunuch. But in the “name of Jesus” probably falls to someone taking “in the name of Jesus Christ” literally and then trying to legalize this as a process and it has fallen to tradition. But then again when we say, “In the name of Jesus” after a prayer, we are doing a similar thing. We are stating what was never codified (or in the case of an example of praying was never actually said). It is not that it is bad, but that some would disqualify the baptism based on no exact confession and no exact statement from the baptizer.
3. Jay Guin says:

   August 12, 2015 at 8:42 pm

   Alexander F,

   The accusation has been made many times, but there is no evidence for it. There is not a single ancient manuscript of Matthew that omits the Trinitarian language. And we have manuscripts that predate the papacy by centuries.

   Eusebius, a Christian historian who was a contemporary of Constantine (early Fourth Century), sometimes reference Mat 28:19 without the Trinitarian language, just into the name of Jesus Christ, but it’s never as a direct quotation and few scholars believe he based his paraphrase on an actual scriptural text. After all, the texts we have that were likely associated with Constantine’s efforts include the Trinitarian language, and Eusebius was in close relationship with Constantine.

   The translators of the NET Bible explain,

   Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mat 28:19, ” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.

   Nearly all the major commentaries think the Trinitarian language is original with Matthew.

   And this article lays out the evidence very accurately: http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Matt28.19TexualCriticism.pdf

Comments are closed.