August 13, 2025 • 51 mins
There seems to be a discrepancy between Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and the apostles' consistent practice of baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ" throughout the book of Acts.
This compelling episode dives deep into this fascinating enigma, examining what Jesus truly meant when addressing His disciples before ascending to heaven. Through careful biblical analysis, we explore the possibility that Jesus wasn't dictating specific words to say during baptism but rather instructing His followers on what to do with proper spiritual authority. If the disciples who walked with Jesus himself baptized differently than many churches practice today, shouldn't we take notice?
The significance of the name of Jesus emerges as a central theme throughout scripture. From Old Testament declarations that "the name of the Lord is a strong tower" to Peter's bold assertion that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved," we trace how the power and authority in Jesus' name was understood and applied by early believers.
We also examine fascinating historical evidence showing how baptismal practices evolved over the first few centuries of Christianity, culminating in formalized changes at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This raises profound questions about whether modern practices reflect apostolic teaching or later theological developments.
Whether you've been baptized, are considering baptism, or simply want to deepen your understanding of biblical practices, this episode will challenge you to look beyond tradition to the patterns established by Jesus and His apostles. Study the scriptures for yourself and let the primary source material guide your understanding rather than merely accepting inherited traditions.
"Message Our Father's Heart a Question or Response"
Thank you so much for listening and sharing with others!
We would very much appreciate you continuing to FOLLOW, SUBSCRIBE, and LIKE us through any of the following platforms:
Substack: https://ourfathersheart.substack.com/
Website: ourfathersheart.org
Podcast: https://ourfathersheart.buzzsprout.com/share
Twitter: https://twitter.com/@ofathersheart
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/ofathersheart
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ourfathersheart
May God bless you and make you prosperous in Him as you listen and obey His voice!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
j - Jesus M. Ruiz (00:04):
The vision received was that of blood cells
traveling throughout the body,supplying the much-needed oxygen
and other nutrients to thediffering members of the body to
fulfill their purpose.
Once the blood cells are spent,they must return back to the
heart to be refilled beforebeing sent out again and fulfill
their purpose and fulfill theirpurpose.
(00:29):
So let me see if I may be ofsome service to you.
The question that we should askourselves in regards to 2819,
Matthew 28:19, is this, "WasJesus telling them what they
(00:49):
should say or was he tellingthem what they should do?
I want you to think about thatfor a moment before we go any
further In Matthew 28, 19,.
(01:12):
Let me repeat it one more timeso you can get the point that
I'm trying to make Was Jesustrying to tell them what they
should say, or was He tellingthem what they should do?
Let's try to be logical.
(01:36):
Let's think this out through.
Think about these two questionsof what are the ramifications?
If Matthew recorded what Hesaid, Jesus said in order to
tell us what to say, then allbelievers in the body of Christ
(01:58):
have an empirical problem intheir faith.
Because the disciples whobecame apostles and ministered
the kingdom of God after theascension of Jesus, all of them
disobeyed Jesus.
(02:18):
Now, I've just shared with youall of the relevant, clear, and
explicit examples of how one wasbaptized in the first century
(02:49):
to say and we have clear-cutevidence that demonstrates that
not even the apostles obeyed Himthen this faith that we all
confess we believe in, iseffectively in vain.
You see, the evidence of thiscontradiction is as clear as the
sun is bright in the sky on acloudless day at noontime.
(03:12):
If Jesus was telling us what tosay in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the HolySpirit, and the apostles,
disciples who heard him givedirections at the first, second,
(03:33):
third and every opportunitygiven to them to adhere to that
instruction, they all disobeyedand did it differently.
Why are we believing this faith?
Because they're effectivelydemonstrating that they could do
(03:53):
things the way that they wantto, rather than what was
instructed to them.
If.
If it is the case that he wastelling us what to say.
However, maybe we misunderstood, maybe Jesus was not telling
(04:17):
them what to say in Matthew 2819.
But rather he was telling themwhat to do.
If that is the case, then thedilemma, this apparent conflict,
is effectively resolved.
The disciples turned apostlesin the first century, did obey
(04:42):
Jesus and continued the work ofthe kingdom properly, as
testified by the scriptures inActs, which is Luke's historical
account, tracking the acts ofthe Spirit of Jesus in and
through his apostles.
It's very simple when you justthink of it in that way.
(05:04):
One way we basically condemnourselves and all the rest of
Christianity because none ofthem, at least from the first
century on, if you just followthe rest of the disciples who
became apostles none of them didwhat he said to say.
(05:27):
But if they did what he said todo, then we have no issues.
Now, if these testimoniesweren't enough for your
consideration, I would like togive you more scriptural support
on why we should be pronouncingand declaring the name of Jesus
(05:48):
in baptism.
If it's not clear to you bynow, remember I said earlier the
name there must be some realsignificance or importance,
because they're all saying inthe name, in my name, in His
name, the name.
(06:08):
So the significance of His nameis of utmost importance and I
want to show you that from theold covenant to the new, whether
you interpret it literally asthe saying of His name, or you
interpret it as the namereferring to calling on the
presence of Yahweh, and Jesus isYahweh incarnate.
(06:29):
Look at what it says about thename in the Old Covenant, and
I'm not going to give you all ofthem, I'm just going to give
you a certain segment to showyou that the name is so
important.
In Proverbs 18:10, it says thename of the Lord is a strong
tower and the righteous run intoit and are safe.
It says in Psalm 79:9, help us,O God of our salvation, for the
(06:55):
glory of your name, and deliverus and a pride, atonement for
our sins for your name's sake,atonement for our sins for your
namesake.
In Joel 2:32, chapter 2, verse32, which is what was referred
to by Peter on the day ofPentecost in Acts, chapter 2.
And it says and it shall cometo pass that whoever calls on
(07:19):
the name of the Lord shall besaved.
And it says further for inMount Zion and in Jerusalem
there shall be deliverance, asthe Lord has said, among the
remnant whom the Lord calls.
It says in Malachi 1, verse 11.
(07:42):
It's a song that we actuallysing now that I think about it,
for from the rising of the sunto the sun goes down, it says
let the name of the Lord bepraised.
That's the song.
But it says here for from therising of the sun even to its
going down, my name shall begreat among the Gentiles.
In every place incense shall beoffered to my name, and a pure
(08:14):
offering for my name shall begreat among the nations says the
Lord of hosts.
So there's no question thathaving the name of the Lord is
incredibly important, whateverthat name is, because name is
not a name.
It's saying that there's a name, there's something that someone
(08:35):
is called, there's a name forthat person.
And so let's go right into thenew covenant, Matthew 1:21.
And she will bring forth a son,and you shall call his name
Jesus, for He will save hispeople from what?
(08:55):
From their sins.
Oh, wow, the angel broughtforth a message, because that's
what an angel is a messenger.
And he says his name, this sonthat you're going to bring forth
, his name is called Jesus andhe's going to save his people
from their sins.
So the name of the son thatsaves his people from their sins
(09:18):
, which we just read in the OldTestatment.
That's what the Lord doessaving his people, providing
atonement for their sins, forthe glory of his name, for his
name's sake, that whoever callsupon the name of the Lord shall
be saved.
His name is Jesus.
Now I'm going to go to the redletters.
Not that I think there'sanything more important, but
(09:39):
just so you know that Jesus saidin John 5: 43, I have come.
This is when he was an adult.
I have come in my Father's name.
Ah, so the Son, his name isJesus.
The Son says, hey, I come in myFather's name, of which Matthew
12 (10:03):
21 quotes the Old Covenant, and says and in his name,
Gentiles will trust.
Remember those scriptures.
The Gentiles are going to besaved in his name.
And then we have John 14 (10:13):
26.
But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he will teach you allthings that I said to you.
So we've got three scriptures,interestingly enough, where the
(10:36):
Son has a name.
His name is Jesus.
The Son says he comes in theFather's name, of which we
already identified his name isJesus.
The Son says he comes in theFather's name, of which we
already identified his name isJesus.
The Son's name is Jesus and hecomes in his Father's name.
And then the Holy Spirit willbe sent, the Helper, and the
(10:56):
Father will send him in my name.
Wow, the name of the Lord isincredibly important.
And so now we think about whatLuke said again, and that
repentance and remission of sinsshould be preached in his name
(11:16):
to all nations, beginning inJerusalem.
And Luke, Luke 24 (11:21):
47 dovetails right into Acts, chapter two,
because it's the same authorcontinuing the same account to
show Theophilus how thisprogression, movement of Jesus
and His kingdom continued on.
It says then Peter said to themrepent and let every one of you
be baptized in the name ofJesus Christ.
(11:43):
For what?
The remission of sins.
And then I didn't bring upthese other ones before, but
these are as important.
They're not examples of baptism, but it's just communicating to
us the importance and thesignificance of his name.
It says in Acts 4:12, againwritten by Luke, Nor is there
(12:04):
salvation in any other, forthere is no other name under
heaven given among men by whichwe must be saved.
Man, you can't escape salvationand the name of Jesus being
intertwined.
(12:24):
Let's read Philippians 2,verses 9 through 11.
It says that at the name ofJesus every knee should bow, of
those in heaven and of those onearth and of those under the
(12:47):
earth, and that every tongueshould confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, the significance andthe magnificence and the majesty
and the power of his name isincredibly important.
Let's go back to Acts, chapter 3.
Remember when Peter this wasafter Pentecost remember when
(13:09):
Peter was preaching in thesynagogues and he came across
someone that was infirmed orsick or he couldn't walk.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he couldn'twalk.
And he came by him and he saysPeter said to him hey, silver
and gold I do not have, but whatI do have I give you in the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.
(13:31):
And then he was walking andleaping and praising God.
Walking and leaping andpraising God, in the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, riseup and walk.
That's an old children's song.
I mean, I'm telling youscriptures, just they start
coming to me in songs all thetime.
Think about that.
(13:53):
And then, as Peter recounts whattook place and what happened,
he wants to remind everyoneabout this healing that just
took place.
He says in Acts 3:16, 10 verseslater and in his name, through
faith in his name, this man wasmade strong, whom you see and
know.
Yes, the faith which comesthrough him has given him this
(14:18):
perfect soundness in thepresence of you all, incredible,
telling you, guys, if you dofurther research in the
scriptures, you'll not bedisappointed.
Questions will be answereddefinitively, convincingly.
(14:39):
If the Spirit of God is leadingyou as you are reading and
studying the Scriptures, youwill come to conclusions that
are accepted and believed on bythe rest of the brethren, even
if the rest of the brethrenhappen to be the minority.
Yes, I said the minority.
(15:01):
Because baptizing in the nameof the Father, Son and the Holy
Spirit is now today the majority, it's not the minority.
Most religious organizationsbaptize in that way Because
they're following a particularorganization or religious group
(15:24):
that began that and we'll talkabout that soon enough.
But let me close out, becauseI've been sticking to the
Scriptures all this time, and Ialways do.
I think, if you recognize Idon't bear out, I don't journey
outside the Scriptures veryoften, but when I do, I always
start with the scripturesbecause I believe we need to get
(15:45):
our foundation laid by thescriptures and not outside the
scriptures, by people outsideour understanding, and a bedrock
of our foundation should comethrough the scriptures.
So let me read one more to you.
Consider Colossians 3, verse 17.
Paul said Whatever you do inword or deed, do all in the name
(16:23):
of the Lord Jesus, givingthanks to God, the, the Father
through him, brothers andsisters, all those of you that
are listening, there is noscripture that shows anyone
being baptized by saying in thename of the Father and of the
(16:44):
Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Everyone in the first centurywho followed Jesus and adhered
to the doctrine of his apostlesbaptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus.
There was no shame in it.
It actually was a testimony toall the Jews of Jerusalem and
(17:15):
Samaria that Jesus, Yahwehincarnate, the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, had come as theMessiah and was crucified on
(17:36):
the cross for their sins and herose again on the third day.
Brothers and sisters, for me,the scriptural evidence is
overwhelmingly in favor ofdeclaring, decreeing and
speaking the name of Jesus atbaptism, in contrast to in the
name of the Father and of theSon, and of the name of Jesus at
baptism in contrast to in thename of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, ofwhich I have absolutely no
(18:00):
scriptural evidence to sharewith you.
That in and of itself shouldsquash the 2819 project, because
it has clearly it has noscriptural foundation on which
to stand.
(18:23):
It's only when you leave thesecurity of the scriptures that
false ideologies and practicesarise.
Even accepting the record, asMatthew stated, in the name of
the Father and of the Son and ofthe Holy Spirit, we see that
the word Father, well, that'snot a name, that's a title.
And neither is the word Son.
That's not a name, that's atitle.
(18:43):
We don't call someone Father,we don't call someone Son or
Holy Spirit.
That's a title.
Who is it referring to?
These are not names, these aretitles referring to God, who was
revealed to his children in theold covenant by the name of
Yahweh and has now, in theincarnation, revealed a new name
(19:06):
to his children in the newcovenant.
That is the name of Jesus orYeshua.
As you can see, up to this point, I have tried to emphasize and
focus on primary source material.
That's what I call it.
That's not even what I call it.
That's what's called.
When you do research, you tryyou should always go to primary
(19:31):
source material, meaning thebiblical record itself.
If we're doing you know,biblical studies, when you
engage in biblical research, theoriginal record, that's primary
source material, meaning theGospels, the letters of the New
Covenant, the books of the Biblein the Old Covenant, the Torah,
or some call it the Tanakh.
(19:52):
That would be original sourcematerial, because it's records
of those closest to the event orthe person or the issue that
you're studying.
That should be your startingpoint.
You begin with primary sourcematerial and you analyze it and
you interpret it to gain deeperunderstanding of the subject
(20:13):
matter you're studying.
That's what we've done and Iencourage you don't take my word
for it.
Study it yourself.
Confirm the things that I'veshared with you are true
regarding the biblicaltestimonies that I've shared
thus far.
I encourage you to do that onyour own.
I'm not afraid to find it.
(20:34):
You contact me later and say,oh, you found something
different, go ahead and bring it.
Go ahead and bring it.
I feel the same way as I didwhen I made the podcast.
I think it was episode 100about I do believe dot, dot, dot
, dot in the Trinity, and I'mgoing to leave that there.
(20:59):
So if you want to go back andlisten to that podcast, because
it's very similar to this one.
I stick to primary sourcematerial and coming to my
conclusions, but once you havecompleted your analysis of
primary source material, youthen might continue looking into
(21:22):
secondary and tertiary research, in other words, materials that
others have created based upontheir research of the topic,
because you're not the first tolook into primary source
material and come up with someunderstandings.
Now, those understandings thatyou come up with, if you start
(21:44):
writing about them or sharingwith them, that becomes
secondary material, secondaryresearch material or tertiary
research material, because itmay have been.
You know, you came up withsomething after you looked at
primary source material andsecondary source material and
some people might call it thenit's tertiary or third research
material.
But in biblical research, thisis where we it can get, where it
(22:07):
can open deeper levels ofunderstanding.
You know, looking at whatothers have said or it could get
dicey, it could get confusing,and for early on in my faith
walk, that hesitancy was healthyno-transcript and you become
(22:57):
grounded in the Word and theWord is your foundation, the
primary source material and thecorrect interpretation and
understanding of that.
You can then listen to whatother people might be saying and
then, as a Berean, you look tothe scriptures and you study to
(23:19):
see if the things that are saidare true.
Same thing happened to Paul.
So I want us to remember whatJohn said, John the Apostle,
concerning those that would tryto deceive you.
He said in 1 John 2 (23:32):
27,.
He said the anointing which youhave received from him abides
in you and you don't need thatanyone teach you.
But as the same anointingteaches you concerning all
things and is true and is not alie, and just as it is taught
(23:52):
you, you will abide in him, theanointing is going to teach us
all things and the anointing isnone other than the Holy Spirit,
which is the Spirit of Christ,or the Spirit of Jesus, the
Spirit of God, and the Spirit isthe essence of God, it's who he
is, it's God he's going toteach you and if you have a
(24:22):
humble heart and you're hungryand you're thirsty and you want
to gain deeper understanding, hewill lead you and guide you to
help you better understand Hiskingdom.
So, firstly, we remember theanointing will teach us all
things.
Secondly, I want you to alwayskeep in mind that primary
research should supersede allsecondary and tertiary research,
(24:42):
especially I mean, obviously,when it conflicts with the
explicit statements found in thescriptures, the primary source
material.
Now, as we research more deeplyand we consider sometimes
secondary research, tertiaryresearch, we should always be
praying Lord, show me your truth, give me a witness, accompanied
(25:07):
with your peace, and develop inme discernment to distinguish
between truth and error.
I'm humble enough to recognizethat I might have areas of
ignorance, blind spots that I'mnot aware of, and I trust that
you will reveal them to me andnot allow me to be led astray
(25:27):
when I'm sincerely desiring yourunderstanding and your truth.
So, in beginning this nextsection of further research, I
want us to acknowledge God inall our ways and then
confidently go forward trustingin him.
What some of us listening tothis may or may not know is that
(25:52):
Matthew 28, 19 is branded bythe Roman Catholic Church as the
Trinitarian formula.
Today it is considered thenormal and expected way to
baptize.
According to Roman Catholichistorical scholars, the early
(26:14):
textual and historical evidenceindicates that this idea, this
Trinitarian formula, developedover time Because, admittedly,
they admit, baptism was notoriginally done in this manner.
So, remembering the scripturesthat I have already shared, it
(26:36):
was clearly done in the name ofJesus and that is substantiated
by all primary source material,namely the New Covenant
scriptures, specifically theGospels and Acts.
Now other scholars, such as ECWhitaker he traced the
historical emergence of thisTrinitarian formula and he
(26:57):
acknowledges that it did notbegin this way.
It became the standardgradually.
He admitted that Acts and sometexts that were outside the
Scriptures, in other words someother writings that were outside
of what we consider today theBible, also confirm that baptism
in the name of Jesus wasactually the standard and that
(27:19):
this declaration was common inthe earliest communities of the
first century.
In other words, this is howthey did it in the first century
they baptized in the name ofJesus.
There are other scholars like LFMiller and Everett Ferguson
that document that by the early2nd century which means between
100 and 200 AD so now we'retalking about 100 years after
(27:42):
the apostles had already diedbaptismal rite began to be
standardized in a differentmanner than how the original
apostles practiced.
Why?
Because during the 100 and 200AD on into 300 AD, there was
(28:05):
this growing theologicalemphasis of the Trinity,
ecclesiastical unity andcatechetical structure.
Things were changing, thingswere being modified.
(28:28):
Another scholar, du Asue I maybe pronouncing that wrong,
forgive me A-S-U-E, that's thelast name he documents in his
analysis that this shift toformalize the Trinitarian
formula okay, over what I wouldcall the original apostolic
formula, carried about by thechosen apostles of Jesus Christ
and those who abided in theapostles' doctrine of the first
(28:48):
century.
He says that the shift toformalize this Trinitarian
formula was close to itscompletion by the late second
and early third century, that'salmost 200 years after all the
apostles had already died.
This development and shiftculminated in the endorsement of
(29:11):
the Nicene Council in 325 AD bythose that later became known
as Roman Catholics.
What happened in the NiceneCouncil established a contrary
theological framework, not onlyfor baptism but also for the
(29:38):
understanding of the Godhead andYahweh incarnate.
There was a revolutionarychange that happened at the
Nicene Council that was contraryto apostolic doctrine, in other
words, the teachings of theapostles who were directly
(30:00):
instructed by Jesus himself.
So in this next set ofinformation, of secondary
research, I start with thisinformation because I want us
all to understand that even theRoman Catholic Church
acknowledges and admits thatthey deviated from the
(30:23):
scriptures to establish theirown doctrine, their own new set
of practices and their newcodified set of beliefs, even
though they were blatantlycontrary to the apostles of
Jesus Christ and what theypracticed and what they taught.
(30:44):
They don't apologize for it.
Apologize for it.
Today, they continue theirtraditions over and above the
(31:04):
word of God.
Reminds me, Jesus made thisremark about the Pharisees
because they made.
The Pharisees made the samemistake in other areas that what
I just declared the RomanCatholic Church admittedly,
self-admittedly, did.
(31:25):
Why did they make thesemistakes?
Because the principle of errorand pride, in other words, the
spirit of error and pride,remain the same.
But Jesus said of the Phariseesin Mark 7, verse 9, he said to
them all too well, you rejectthe commandment of God, that you
(31:47):
may keep your tradition.
Furthermore, he said in verse13 of the same chapter of Mark 7
, making the word of God of noeffect through your tradition,
which you have handed down, andmany such things you do See, in
(32:08):
my humble opinion, the RomanCatholic Church is just as
guilty as the Pharisees in thisregard.
You know, I thought ofsomething else.
Jesus also said it to thePharisees in Matthew, or he said
about them, because he didn'tsay to the Pharisees, he said
about them.
He said in Matthew 23, 2, thescribes and the Pharisees sit in
(32:29):
Moses's seat.
Pharisees sit in Moses' seat Ifyou've done any due diligence
on your part and looked into thehistory of the Roman Catholic
Church during the Roman CatholicChurch's rise to power.
Like the Pharisees who putthemselves in the seat of Moses
and his authority in the OldCovenant, the Roman Catholic
(32:52):
Church displaced the Apostlesfrom their seat of authority i n
the New Covenant.
The apostles were replaced withpopes and cardinals and bishops
and other doctrines in theirplace, and they went so far as
to say that Peter was the firstpope.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm not sorry.
(33:16):
Let me take that back.
I take that back, I'm not sorry.
Nothing could be further fromthe truth.
But this is what the RomanCatholic Church has done, and
there are many you may not beaware of who recognize this as
nothing other than a spiritualcoup d'etat.
That's that French word foroverthrow of a government.
(33:39):
You see, the Roman CatholicChurch endeavored to overthrow
the apostles and institute theirown chosen people in positions
of power and influence, and ithas continued to thrive in this
manner for the last 1,700 years.
(33:59):
But most people don't know thisbecause most people don't know
church history.
Furthermore, most people don'tknow the Bible, because I didn't
start with secondary researchtoday.
I started with primary research.
When you look into secondaryresearch after you've fully
considered primary research, youwill detect errors and you will
(34:23):
detect truth, because you arefully persuaded and convinced of
the truth by the truth.
But right now, because I'vebased this teaching exclusively
on primary source material fordirection on this new covenant
walk with our God, I'm stilltaking the time now to show this
(34:45):
other, non-canonical materialyou know, other stuff that's
outside the Bible to show thatthe internal evidence, meaning
the primary source material,happens to also be confirmed by
external evidence, in otherwords, secondary, tertiary
(35:06):
research material, even thoughthe secondary and tertiary
sources are against the doctrineand practice of the apostles.
Amazing, amazing.
Now, brothers and sisters, asfor me, I am ultimately
convinced by the primaryresources from the Bible alone.
(35:31):
I know there are some othersthat sometimes need a little bit
more, and so I'm sharing thisinformation so that you can
continue your research and yourdue diligence and so that you
can be fully persuaded in yourown mind to trust God's Word in
the first place.
Trust those whom he chose tocontinue the ministry of His
(35:51):
kingdom before he ascended intothe heavens.
After all, through Paul, theWord of God also declares the
following it says in Ephesians 2, verses 19-20, Now, therefore,
you are no longer strangers andforeigners.
You are fellow citizens withthe saints and members of the
household of God.
You have been built on thefoundation of the apostles and
(36:18):
prophets.
Apostles meaning the newcovenant, apostles and disciples
of Jesus Christ, and theprophets meaning the old
covenant prophets, and then itputs them together, ties them
and intertwines them together,saying Jesus Christ himself is
the chief cornerstone.
(36:38):
There's a little bit moreinformation I'd like to share
with you, but before I do that,I want to make it perfectly
clear I accept 2819 as it'srecorded.
Matthew 2819, I accept it asit's recorded.
It, in my opinion, needs nomodification, because I don't
take one verse for scripture todiscern doctrine.
I don't look at that one verseand, oh, I'm going to
(37:00):
extrapolate and create adoctrine.
No, I looked at all theevidence and I put them together
so that I can see properly thewhole mosaic picture of what's
going on.
I didn't take a small detailand a small detail and that's it
.
I looked at all the details andput them together to see how
(37:20):
they align together, because inChrist there is no confusion,
there is no Babel, there is nodarkness, there is no lie.
I look at multiple primarysources to help understand the
full doctrine, in this caseconcerning baptism.
However, if you research this,you will find the following bit
(37:44):
of information that you may ormay not be aware of, and I
remember I think I ran into thisyears ago and I you know, for
this particular podcast.
I just kind of looked it upagain, so let me share it.
Some scholars I say somebecause it's a minority some
scholars think that Matthew 28: 19 was either added or modified (38:06):
undefined
to become what we have acceptedit to be in the present day, in
the name of the Father, Son andthe Holy Spirit.
Now, before I get, why do I saysome scholars say that.
Let me admit the four reasonswhy it's there.
(38:27):
Okay, these are the reasons whyscholars believe yes, it should
be there.
Basically that, yes, this is avalid writing of Matthew that he
wrote in Matthew 20 (38:40):
19.
Manuscripts are important.
Manuscripts are the originaldocuments that were used, that
were found, that recorded whatthe biblical writers had said.
So the phrase in the name ofthe Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit appears inevery known Greek manuscript of
(39:03):
Matthew.
I'll be right up front.
It says that in every Greekmanuscript of Matthew that we
have, that we are aware of, okay, including the oldest one.
The oldest manuscript that wehave of Matthew was a parchment
that was given a name CodexSinaiticus, and there's another
(39:25):
manuscript that was given thename Codex Vaticanus.
But these manuscripts of Matthew28: 19 were from the 4th
century, in other words, between300 and 400 AD.
There are no manuscriptvariations that omit the
(39:46):
Trinitarian formula.
Okay, so the people that arefor that, yes, it should be
there.
This is some of theirreasonings why and I have a
little thing I want to highlighthere because I think it's
important that the manuscriptsthat they have that are the
oldest regarding Matthew andspecific 28:19, are found in the
4th century.
(40:06):
I'm going to come back to thata little bit later, but I'm just
highlighting there.
But that's why they believethat it should be there, because
all of the manuscripts havethat phraseology.
Then you look at secondaryresearch and you see that early
Church Fathers quoted orparaphrase this verse with the
(40:26):
Trinitarian wording of Father,Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Didache has it.
Tertullian defends theTrinitarian Baptism, but this
was in 200 AD.
So this is again a hundredyears after the apostles had
already died, and they citedthis verse.
Okay, and this formula if youlook at it historically and it's
(40:52):
developed it became thestandard liturgical phrase in
Christian baptism rites.
That's another reason why theysay, oh yeah, it should be there
.
That's a valid thing, becausewe see that in the Christian
baptism rites of the earlycenturies of first, second,
third and fourth centuryActually not even the first,
because the first had adifferent thing altogether and
(41:15):
then they also consider that,yes, it should be there, because
Matthew's theological stylefrequently uses triads and the
structures involving Father, sonand Spirit.
So they have no quibble, theyhave no qualm that yes, it
should be there.
So let me give you some of thereasons why some scholars and I
say some because I think it's aminority, it's some say ah, we
(41:37):
got some questions about it.
There was a man named Eusebius.
He lived between 260 and 340 AD, again 150 years after the
apostles had already died.
We have this man named Eusebiuswho frequently quotes Matthew
20 and 19, but he omitted oftenthe Trinitarian formula and
(41:59):
instead of writing in the nameof the Father, Son and the Holy
Spirit, he says go and makedisciples of all nations in my
name.
Why would he do that?
I don't know If it's valid andif it's correct, maybe because
he just didn't want to writethat whole phraseology and he
just said in my name because heunderstood what it meant.
I don't know.
So, because there's some recordfrom secondary research
(42:25):
material, this has led some toargue that the original wording
was simply in my name and theTrinitarian formula was a later
liturgical addition.
Then they have a little caveatthat says but Eusebius also
quotes the full Trinitarianversion at least once, and
(42:45):
possibly after the Council ofNicaea in 325 AD.
Hmm, that's interesting to note.
Okay, we're going to have tocome back to that as well later.
So there's many documents thatshow that Eusebius doesn't quote
in the name of the Father, Son,and the Holy Spirit, he just
(43:06):
says in my name.
And then there is a quote wherehe fully quotes the Trinitarian
version, but that was possiblyafter the Council of Nicaea in
325 AD Again, 200 years afterthe apostles had already died.
Interesting.
So one of the other reasonsthat they're against this is
(43:30):
that there just seems to be alack of this Trinitarian
language elsewhere.
And that goes back to myprimary source material.
Nowhere in the Old Testament.
Is there any evidence that thisTrinitarian formula was ever
used in baptism?
Acts 2.38, repent and every oneof you be baptized in the name
(43:52):
of Jesus Christ.
Acts 10.48, baptized in thename of Jesus Christ.
I didn't even bring this one up.
Romans, chapter 6, verse 3,when it talks about what is the
reason and the purpose forbaptism giving a deeper
knowledge and understanding ofbaptism.
Paul was explaining we'rebaptized into Christ Jesus.
He doesn't even say we werebaptized into the name of the
(44:13):
Father, son and the Holy Spirit,christ Jesus.
No, he says baptized intoChrist Jesus.
You can see that for yourself.
And then scholars argue thatthis suggests that the early
church primarily baptized in thename of Jesus.
They did not use theTrinitarian formula.
And then some people argue thatthe phrasing is too polished
(44:34):
and liturgical for Jesus'stypical speech.
He just didn't talk.
Jesus himself didn't talk thatway.
So it suggests that maybe therewas a later edit inserting and
aligning this emergingTrinitarian theology and we keep
(45:00):
running into that tree withinthe 300s but that it seems to be
parallel along with that thatthe method of baptism became
this Trinitarian formula becausethey readily recognize it
didn't start that way.
So it says here the formaldoctrine of the Trinity wasn't
articulated.
(45:21):
Listen, listen very carefully.
The doctrine of the Trinity aswe know it today and it's been
changed, tweaked a little bithere and there, but the formal
doctrine was established, wascodified, if you will, in 325 AD
(45:43):
in the Nicene Council.
And so some argue that theformula reflects this more
developed theology that wouldhave not been present in the
first century Palestine, becausethis theology of the Trinity
was not, was not in firstcentury Palestine.
(46:10):
So, in summary, there's twopositions, scholarly positions.
You have the conservativescholars on one side, which I
think it's kind of funny.
I'll explain that in a second.
You have the conservativescholars that argue that the
overwhelming manuscript andpatristic evidence supports the
authenticity of in the name ofFather, son and the Holy Spirit,
(46:32):
and they explain why Eusebius'shorter quotes as just being
paraphrases or abbreviations,because no one really knows why
he wouldn't just write the wholething Okay.
And I find it funny that theysay conservative scholars argue
for keeping this the way it'swritten.
Yet when we think ofconservative, we think of
(46:53):
conservative means you keep itthe way that it originally was
Conserve Progressives want tochange, want to modify, want to
reframe, want to restate it in adifferent way for progress sake
.
So that's just an oxymoron thatthe conservative scholar want
(47:16):
to argue that they should keepit the changed way rather than
the original way.
Okay, so that's just my littleyou know.
Add on there.
But then they say the secondscholarly position, which is the
critical scholars, critical tothe authenticity of in the name
of the Father, son and HolySpirit.
They believe that it originatedas a baptismal liturgy that the
(47:37):
early church developed and thenthey retroactively placed it in
Jesus' lips in Matthew.
Again, there's no proof thatthis happened.
Now there's another interestingnote that I think should be
added to this, and I think Isaid this earlier the earliest
(48:00):
manuscripts of Matthew come fromthe 3rd century.
Now many of those manuscriptsare in fragments, meaning that
the whole of Matthew as we knowit today was not in that
manuscript.
That fragment that came fromthe third century, meaning in
(48:23):
the 200s.
They have pieces of Matthew.
Actually, the oldest piece ofMatthew that we have only has
Matthew chapter 1, verses 1through 9, and then it has verse
12, and then it has verse 14through 20.
That's the oldest parchmentthat we have, and then over time
(48:45):
we have different parchmentsthat we, I guess, over time
we've kind of come together torealize oh, this is the whole
letter that Matthew wrote.
And so in my research, I foundthe following piece of
information, and I highlight ithere because it's interesting to
note and be aware of theearliest manuscript of the verse
Matthew 28 19, is found in twoCodex Sinaiticus and Codex
(49:25):
Vaticanus, and both of thosedate near the middle of the
fourth century.
For those of you that have ahard time figuring out what the
fourth century, that meansbetween 325 and 350 AD, do we
have the earliest manuscript ofthe verse Matthew 28: 19 in the
name of the Father, Son, and theHoly Spirit?
I find that rather convenient,guys, that the only manuscript
(49:53):
that has in the name of theFather, Son and the Holy Spirit,
Matthew 28 (49:56):
19, the oldest manuscript, happens to be after
the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
Coincidence, I'll let youdecide.
(50:16):
You be the judge of that.
As for me, the internal evidenceis sufficient.
Be critical of those who wantto move or remove landmarks in
the name of progress orenlightenment, if it conflicts
with the explicit statementsfound in the scripture, the
primary source material, thenrecognize the wile of the devil
(50:42):
and be on the alert.
He's up to something, the devil, and be on the alert.
He's up to something and Iguarantee you that whatever he's
up to it will not be good forus.
Let's not fall like Eve did inquestioning the Word of God, nor
ignore its many testimonies.
(51:03):
I echo Paul's sentiments when hesaid testimonies.
I echo Paul's sentiments whenhe said indeed, let God be true,
but every man a liar.
Amen.
If you were blessed andappreciate listening to this
podcast and you would like tosupport us in our efforts,
consider lifting us up in prayerfirst.
(51:23):
Then remember these four socialmedia buzzwords share, like,
subscribe or follow.
Share this podcast link withsomeone else by text, email or
word of mouth in the hopes thatthey might be uplifted, as you
were Like by leaving a positiverating or review with whomever
you listen to our podcast, withSubscribe to support the show
monetarily with the link in ourpodcast description.
(51:45):
Follow us on all our socialmedia platforms.
May God bless you and make youprosperous in Him, as you listen
and obey His voice.
The vision received was that of blood cells
traveling throughout the body,supplying the much-needed oxygen
and other nutrients to thediffering members of the body to
fulfill their purpose.
Once the blood cells are spent,they must return back to the
heart to be refilled beforebeing sent out again and fulfill
their purpose and fulfill theirpurpose.
(00:29):
So let me see if I may be ofsome service to you.
The question that we should askourselves in regards to 2819,
Matthew 28:19, is this, "WasJesus telling them what they
(00:49):
should say or was he tellingthem what they should do?
I want you to think about thatfor a moment before we go any
further In Matthew 28, 19,.
(01:12):
Let me repeat it one more timeso you can get the point that
I'm trying to make Was Jesustrying to tell them what they
should say, or was He tellingthem what they should do?
Let's try to be logical.
(01:36):
Let's think this out through.
Think about these two questionsof what are the ramifications?
If Matthew recorded what Hesaid, Jesus said in order to
tell us what to say, then allbelievers in the body of Christ
(01:58):
have an empirical problem intheir faith.
Because the disciples whobecame apostles and ministered
the kingdom of God after theascension of Jesus, all of them
disobeyed Jesus.
(02:18):
Now, I've just shared with youall of the relevant, clear, and
explicit examples of how one wasbaptized in the first century
(02:49):
to say and we have clear-cutevidence that demonstrates that
not even the apostles obeyed Himthen this faith that we all
confess we believe in, iseffectively in vain.
You see, the evidence of thiscontradiction is as clear as the
sun is bright in the sky on acloudless day at noontime.
(03:12):
If Jesus was telling us what tosay in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the HolySpirit, and the apostles,
disciples who heard him givedirections at the first, second,
(03:33):
third and every opportunitygiven to them to adhere to that
instruction, they all disobeyedand did it differently.
Why are we believing this faith?
Because they're effectivelydemonstrating that they could do
(03:53):
things the way that they wantto, rather than what was
instructed to them.
If.
If it is the case that he wastelling us what to say.
However, maybe we misunderstood, maybe Jesus was not telling
(04:17):
them what to say in Matthew 2819.
But rather he was telling themwhat to do.
If that is the case, then thedilemma, this apparent conflict,
is effectively resolved.
The disciples turned apostlesin the first century, did obey
(04:42):
Jesus and continued the work ofthe kingdom properly, as
testified by the scriptures inActs, which is Luke's historical
account, tracking the acts ofthe Spirit of Jesus in and
through his apostles.
It's very simple when you justthink of it in that way.
(05:04):
One way we basically condemnourselves and all the rest of
Christianity because none ofthem, at least from the first
century on, if you just followthe rest of the disciples who
became apostles none of them didwhat he said to say.
(05:27):
But if they did what he said todo, then we have no issues.
Now, if these testimoniesweren't enough for your
consideration, I would like togive you more scriptural support
on why we should be pronouncingand declaring the name of Jesus
(05:48):
in baptism.
If it's not clear to you bynow, remember I said earlier the
name there must be some realsignificance or importance,
because they're all saying inthe name, in my name, in His
name, the name.
(06:08):
So the significance of His nameis of utmost importance and I
want to show you that from theold covenant to the new, whether
you interpret it literally asthe saying of His name, or you
interpret it as the namereferring to calling on the
presence of Yahweh, and Jesus isYahweh incarnate.
(06:29):
Look at what it says about thename in the Old Covenant, and
I'm not going to give you all ofthem, I'm just going to give
you a certain segment to showyou that the name is so
important.
In Proverbs 18:10, it says thename of the Lord is a strong
tower and the righteous run intoit and are safe.
It says in Psalm 79:9, help us,O God of our salvation, for the
(06:55):
glory of your name, and deliverus and a pride, atonement for
our sins for your name's sake,atonement for our sins for your
namesake.
In Joel 2:32, chapter 2, verse32, which is what was referred
to by Peter on the day ofPentecost in Acts, chapter 2.
And it says and it shall cometo pass that whoever calls on
(07:19):
the name of the Lord shall besaved.
And it says further for inMount Zion and in Jerusalem
there shall be deliverance, asthe Lord has said, among the
remnant whom the Lord calls.
It says in Malachi 1, verse 11.
(07:42):
It's a song that we actuallysing now that I think about it,
for from the rising of the sunto the sun goes down, it says
let the name of the Lord bepraised.
That's the song.
But it says here for from therising of the sun even to its
going down, my name shall begreat among the Gentiles.
In every place incense shall beoffered to my name, and a pure
(08:14):
offering for my name shall begreat among the nations says the
Lord of hosts.
So there's no question thathaving the name of the Lord is
incredibly important, whateverthat name is, because name is
not a name.
It's saying that there's a name, there's something that someone
(08:35):
is called, there's a name forthat person.
And so let's go right into thenew covenant, Matthew 1:21.
And she will bring forth a son,and you shall call his name
Jesus, for He will save hispeople from what?
(08:55):
From their sins.
Oh, wow, the angel broughtforth a message, because that's
what an angel is a messenger.
And he says his name, this sonthat you're going to bring forth
, his name is called Jesus andhe's going to save his people
from their sins.
So the name of the son thatsaves his people from their sins
(09:18):
, which we just read in the OldTestatment.
That's what the Lord doessaving his people, providing
atonement for their sins, forthe glory of his name, for his
name's sake, that whoever callsupon the name of the Lord shall
be saved.
His name is Jesus.
Now I'm going to go to the redletters.
Not that I think there'sanything more important, but
(09:39):
just so you know that Jesus saidin John 5: 43, I have come.
This is when he was an adult.
I have come in my Father's name.
Ah, so the Son, his name isJesus.
The Son says, hey, I come in myFather's name, of which Matthew
12 (10:03):
21 quotes the Old Covenant, and says and in his name,
Gentiles will trust.
Remember those scriptures.
The Gentiles are going to besaved in his name.
And then we have John 14 (10:13):
26.
But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he will teach you allthings that I said to you.
So we've got three scriptures,interestingly enough, where the
(10:36):
Son has a name.
His name is Jesus.
The Son says he comes in theFather's name, of which we
already identified his name isJesus.
The Son says he comes in theFather's name, of which we
already identified his name isJesus.
The Son's name is Jesus and hecomes in his Father's name.
And then the Holy Spirit willbe sent, the Helper, and the
(10:56):
Father will send him in my name.
Wow, the name of the Lord isincredibly important.
And so now we think about whatLuke said again, and that
repentance and remission of sinsshould be preached in his name
(11:16):
to all nations, beginning inJerusalem.
And Luke, Luke 24 (11:21):
47 dovetails right into Acts, chapter two,
because it's the same authorcontinuing the same account to
show Theophilus how thisprogression, movement of Jesus
and His kingdom continued on.
It says then Peter said to themrepent and let every one of you
be baptized in the name ofJesus Christ.
(11:43):
For what?
The remission of sins.
And then I didn't bring upthese other ones before, but
these are as important.
They're not examples of baptism, but it's just communicating to
us the importance and thesignificance of his name.
It says in Acts 4:12, againwritten by Luke, Nor is there
(12:04):
salvation in any other, forthere is no other name under
heaven given among men by whichwe must be saved.
Man, you can't escape salvationand the name of Jesus being
intertwined.
(12:24):
Let's read Philippians 2,verses 9 through 11.
It says that at the name ofJesus every knee should bow, of
those in heaven and of those onearth and of those under the
(12:47):
earth, and that every tongueshould confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, the significance andthe magnificence and the majesty
and the power of his name isincredibly important.
Let's go back to Acts, chapter 3.
Remember when Peter this wasafter Pentecost remember when
(13:09):
Peter was preaching in thesynagogues and he came across
someone that was infirmed orsick or he couldn't walk.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he couldn'twalk.
And he came by him and he saysPeter said to him hey, silver
and gold I do not have, but whatI do have I give you in the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.
(13:31):
And then he was walking andleaping and praising God.
Walking and leaping andpraising God, in the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, riseup and walk.
That's an old children's song.
I mean, I'm telling youscriptures, just they start
coming to me in songs all thetime.
Think about that.
(13:53):
And then, as Peter recounts whattook place and what happened,
he wants to remind everyoneabout this healing that just
took place.
He says in Acts 3:16, 10 verseslater and in his name, through
faith in his name, this man wasmade strong, whom you see and
know.
Yes, the faith which comesthrough him has given him this
(14:18):
perfect soundness in thepresence of you all, incredible,
telling you, guys, if you dofurther research in the
scriptures, you'll not bedisappointed.
Questions will be answereddefinitively, convincingly.
(14:39):
If the Spirit of God is leadingyou as you are reading and
studying the Scriptures, youwill come to conclusions that
are accepted and believed on bythe rest of the brethren, even
if the rest of the brethrenhappen to be the minority.
Yes, I said the minority.
(15:01):
Because baptizing in the nameof the Father, Son and the Holy
Spirit is now today the majority, it's not the minority.
Most religious organizationsbaptize in that way Because
they're following a particularorganization or religious group
(15:24):
that began that and we'll talkabout that soon enough.
But let me close out, becauseI've been sticking to the
Scriptures all this time, and Ialways do.
I think, if you recognize Idon't bear out, I don't journey
outside the Scriptures veryoften, but when I do, I always
start with the scripturesbecause I believe we need to get
(15:45):
our foundation laid by thescriptures and not outside the
scriptures, by people outsideour understanding, and a bedrock
of our foundation should comethrough the scriptures.
So let me read one more to you.
Consider Colossians 3, verse 17.
Paul said Whatever you do inword or deed, do all in the name
(16:23):
of the Lord Jesus, givingthanks to God, the, the Father
through him, brothers andsisters, all those of you that
are listening, there is noscripture that shows anyone
being baptized by saying in thename of the Father and of the
(16:44):
Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Everyone in the first centurywho followed Jesus and adhered
to the doctrine of his apostlesbaptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus.
There was no shame in it.
It actually was a testimony toall the Jews of Jerusalem and
(17:15):
Samaria that Jesus, Yahwehincarnate, the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, had come as theMessiah and was crucified on
(17:36):
the cross for their sins and herose again on the third day.
Brothers and sisters, for me,the scriptural evidence is
overwhelmingly in favor ofdeclaring, decreeing and
speaking the name of Jesus atbaptism, in contrast to in the
name of the Father and of theSon, and of the name of Jesus at
baptism in contrast to in thename of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, ofwhich I have absolutely no
(18:00):
scriptural evidence to sharewith you.
That in and of itself shouldsquash the 2819 project, because
it has clearly it has noscriptural foundation on which
to stand.
(18:23):
It's only when you leave thesecurity of the scriptures that
false ideologies and practicesarise.
Even accepting the record, asMatthew stated, in the name of
the Father and of the Son and ofthe Holy Spirit, we see that
the word Father, well, that'snot a name, that's a title.
And neither is the word Son.
That's not a name, that's atitle.
(18:43):
We don't call someone Father,we don't call someone Son or
Holy Spirit.
That's a title.
Who is it referring to?
These are not names, these aretitles referring to God, who was
revealed to his children in theold covenant by the name of
Yahweh and has now, in theincarnation, revealed a new name
(19:06):
to his children in the newcovenant.
That is the name of Jesus orYeshua.
As you can see, up to this point, I have tried to emphasize and
focus on primary source material.
That's what I call it.
That's not even what I call it.
That's what's called.
When you do research, you tryyou should always go to primary
(19:31):
source material, meaning thebiblical record itself.
If we're doing you know,biblical studies, when you
engage in biblical research, theoriginal record, that's primary
source material, meaning theGospels, the letters of the New
Covenant, the books of the Biblein the Old Covenant, the Torah,
or some call it the Tanakh.
(19:52):
That would be original sourcematerial, because it's records
of those closest to the event orthe person or the issue that
you're studying.
That should be your startingpoint.
You begin with primary sourcematerial and you analyze it and
you interpret it to gain deeperunderstanding of the subject
(20:13):
matter you're studying.
That's what we've done and Iencourage you don't take my word
for it.
Study it yourself.
Confirm the things that I'veshared with you are true
regarding the biblicaltestimonies that I've shared
thus far.
I encourage you to do that onyour own.
I'm not afraid to find it.
(20:34):
You contact me later and say,oh, you found something
different, go ahead and bring it.
Go ahead and bring it.
I feel the same way as I didwhen I made the podcast.
I think it was episode 100about I do believe dot, dot, dot
, dot in the Trinity, and I'mgoing to leave that there.
(20:59):
So if you want to go back andlisten to that podcast, because
it's very similar to this one.
I stick to primary sourcematerial and coming to my
conclusions, but once you havecompleted your analysis of
primary source material, youthen might continue looking into
(21:22):
secondary and tertiary research, in other words, materials that
others have created based upontheir research of the topic,
because you're not the first tolook into primary source
material and come up with someunderstandings.
Now, those understandings thatyou come up with, if you start
(21:44):
writing about them or sharingwith them, that becomes
secondary material, secondaryresearch material or tertiary
research material, because itmay have been.
You know, you came up withsomething after you looked at
primary source material andsecondary source material and
some people might call it thenit's tertiary or third research
material.
But in biblical research, thisis where we it can get, where it
(22:07):
can open deeper levels ofunderstanding.
You know, looking at whatothers have said or it could get
dicey, it could get confusing,and for early on in my faith
walk, that hesitancy was healthyno-transcript and you become
(22:57):
grounded in the Word and theWord is your foundation, the
primary source material and thecorrect interpretation and
understanding of that.
You can then listen to whatother people might be saying and
then, as a Berean, you look tothe scriptures and you study to
(23:19):
see if the things that are saidare true.
Same thing happened to Paul.
So I want us to remember whatJohn said, John the Apostle,
concerning those that would tryto deceive you.
He said in 1 John 2 (23:32):
27,.
He said the anointing which youhave received from him abides
in you and you don't need thatanyone teach you.
But as the same anointingteaches you concerning all
things and is true and is not alie, and just as it is taught
(23:52):
you, you will abide in him, theanointing is going to teach us
all things and the anointing isnone other than the Holy Spirit,
which is the Spirit of Christ,or the Spirit of Jesus, the
Spirit of God, and the Spirit isthe essence of God, it's who he
is, it's God he's going toteach you and if you have a
(24:22):
humble heart and you're hungryand you're thirsty and you want
to gain deeper understanding, hewill lead you and guide you to
help you better understand Hiskingdom.
So, firstly, we remember theanointing will teach us all
things.
Secondly, I want you to alwayskeep in mind that primary
research should supersede allsecondary and tertiary research,
(24:42):
especially I mean, obviously,when it conflicts with the
explicit statements found in thescriptures, the primary source
material.
Now, as we research more deeplyand we consider sometimes
secondary research, tertiaryresearch, we should always be
praying Lord, show me your truth, give me a witness, accompanied
(25:07):
with your peace, and develop inme discernment to distinguish
between truth and error.
I'm humble enough to recognizethat I might have areas of
ignorance, blind spots that I'mnot aware of, and I trust that
you will reveal them to me andnot allow me to be led astray
(25:27):
when I'm sincerely desiring yourunderstanding and your truth.
So, in beginning this nextsection of further research, I
want us to acknowledge God inall our ways and then
confidently go forward trustingin him.
What some of us listening tothis may or may not know is that
(25:52):
Matthew 28, 19 is branded bythe Roman Catholic Church as the
Trinitarian formula.
Today it is considered thenormal and expected way to
baptize.
According to Roman Catholichistorical scholars, the early
(26:14):
textual and historical evidenceindicates that this idea, this
Trinitarian formula, developedover time Because, admittedly,
they admit, baptism was notoriginally done in this manner.
So, remembering the scripturesthat I have already shared, it
(26:36):
was clearly done in the name ofJesus and that is substantiated
by all primary source material,namely the New Covenant
scriptures, specifically theGospels and Acts.
Now other scholars, such as ECWhitaker he traced the
historical emergence of thisTrinitarian formula and he
(26:57):
acknowledges that it did notbegin this way.
It became the standardgradually.
He admitted that Acts and sometexts that were outside the
Scriptures, in other words someother writings that were outside
of what we consider today theBible, also confirm that baptism
in the name of Jesus wasactually the standard and that
(27:19):
this declaration was common inthe earliest communities of the
first century.
In other words, this is howthey did it in the first century
they baptized in the name ofJesus.
There are other scholars like LFMiller and Everett Ferguson
that document that by the early2nd century which means between
100 and 200 AD so now we'retalking about 100 years after
(27:42):
the apostles had already diedbaptismal rite began to be
standardized in a differentmanner than how the original
apostles practiced.
Why?
Because during the 100 and 200AD on into 300 AD, there was
(28:05):
this growing theologicalemphasis of the Trinity,
ecclesiastical unity andcatechetical structure.
Things were changing, thingswere being modified.
(28:28):
Another scholar, du Asue I maybe pronouncing that wrong,
forgive me A-S-U-E, that's thelast name he documents in his
analysis that this shift toformalize the Trinitarian
formula okay, over what I wouldcall the original apostolic
formula, carried about by thechosen apostles of Jesus Christ
and those who abided in theapostles' doctrine of the first
(28:48):
century.
He says that the shift toformalize this Trinitarian
formula was close to itscompletion by the late second
and early third century, that'salmost 200 years after all the
apostles had already died.
This development and shiftculminated in the endorsement of
(29:11):
the Nicene Council in 325 AD bythose that later became known
as Roman Catholics.
What happened in the NiceneCouncil established a contrary
theological framework, not onlyfor baptism but also for the
(29:38):
understanding of the Godhead andYahweh incarnate.
There was a revolutionarychange that happened at the
Nicene Council that was contraryto apostolic doctrine, in other
words, the teachings of theapostles who were directly
(30:00):
instructed by Jesus himself.
So in this next set ofinformation, of secondary
research, I start with thisinformation because I want us
all to understand that even theRoman Catholic Church
acknowledges and admits thatthey deviated from the
(30:23):
scriptures to establish theirown doctrine, their own new set
of practices and their newcodified set of beliefs, even
though they were blatantlycontrary to the apostles of
Jesus Christ and what theypracticed and what they taught.
(30:44):
They don't apologize for it.
Apologize for it.
Today, they continue theirtraditions over and above the
(31:04):
word of God.
Reminds me, Jesus made thisremark about the Pharisees
because they made.
The Pharisees made the samemistake in other areas that what
I just declared the RomanCatholic Church admittedly,
self-admittedly, did.
(31:25):
Why did they make thesemistakes?
Because the principle of errorand pride, in other words, the
spirit of error and pride,remain the same.
But Jesus said of the Phariseesin Mark 7, verse 9, he said to
them all too well, you rejectthe commandment of God, that you
(31:47):
may keep your tradition.
Furthermore, he said in verse13 of the same chapter of Mark 7
, making the word of God of noeffect through your tradition,
which you have handed down, andmany such things you do See, in
(32:08):
my humble opinion, the RomanCatholic Church is just as
guilty as the Pharisees in thisregard.
You know, I thought ofsomething else.
Jesus also said it to thePharisees in Matthew, or he said
about them, because he didn'tsay to the Pharisees, he said
about them.
He said in Matthew 23, 2, thescribes and the Pharisees sit in
(32:29):
Moses's seat.
Pharisees sit in Moses' seat Ifyou've done any due diligence
on your part and looked into thehistory of the Roman Catholic
Church during the Roman CatholicChurch's rise to power.
Like the Pharisees who putthemselves in the seat of Moses
and his authority in the OldCovenant, the Roman Catholic
(32:52):
Church displaced the Apostlesfrom their seat of authority i n
the New Covenant.
The apostles were replaced withpopes and cardinals and bishops
and other doctrines in theirplace, and they went so far as
to say that Peter was the firstpope.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm not sorry.
(33:16):
Let me take that back.
I take that back, I'm not sorry.
Nothing could be further fromthe truth.
But this is what the RomanCatholic Church has done, and
there are many you may not beaware of who recognize this as
nothing other than a spiritualcoup d'etat.
That's that French word foroverthrow of a government.
(33:39):
You see, the Roman CatholicChurch endeavored to overthrow
the apostles and institute theirown chosen people in positions
of power and influence, and ithas continued to thrive in this
manner for the last 1,700 years.
(33:59):
But most people don't know thisbecause most people don't know
church history.
Furthermore, most people don'tknow the Bible, because I didn't
start with secondary researchtoday.
I started with primary research.
When you look into secondaryresearch after you've fully
considered primary research, youwill detect errors and you will
(34:23):
detect truth, because you arefully persuaded and convinced of
the truth by the truth.
But right now, because I'vebased this teaching exclusively
on primary source material fordirection on this new covenant
walk with our God, I'm stilltaking the time now to show this
(34:45):
other, non-canonical materialyou know, other stuff that's
outside the Bible to show thatthe internal evidence, meaning
the primary source material,happens to also be confirmed by
external evidence, in otherwords, secondary, tertiary
(35:06):
research material, even thoughthe secondary and tertiary
sources are against the doctrineand practice of the apostles.
Amazing, amazing.
Now, brothers and sisters, asfor me, I am ultimately
convinced by the primaryresources from the Bible alone.
(35:31):
I know there are some othersthat sometimes need a little bit
more, and so I'm sharing thisinformation so that you can
continue your research and yourdue diligence and so that you
can be fully persuaded in yourown mind to trust God's Word in
the first place.
Trust those whom he chose tocontinue the ministry of His
(35:51):
kingdom before he ascended intothe heavens.
After all, through Paul, theWord of God also declares the
following it says in Ephesians 2, verses 19-20, Now, therefore,
you are no longer strangers andforeigners.
You are fellow citizens withthe saints and members of the
household of God.
You have been built on thefoundation of the apostles and
(36:18):
prophets.
Apostles meaning the newcovenant, apostles and disciples
of Jesus Christ, and theprophets meaning the old
covenant prophets, and then itputs them together, ties them
and intertwines them together,saying Jesus Christ himself is
the chief cornerstone.
(36:38):
There's a little bit moreinformation I'd like to share
with you, but before I do that,I want to make it perfectly
clear I accept 2819 as it'srecorded.
Matthew 2819, I accept it asit's recorded.
It, in my opinion, needs nomodification, because I don't
take one verse for scripture todiscern doctrine.
I don't look at that one verseand, oh, I'm going to
(37:00):
extrapolate and create adoctrine.
No, I looked at all theevidence and I put them together
so that I can see properly thewhole mosaic picture of what's
going on.
I didn't take a small detailand a small detail and that's it
.
I looked at all the details andput them together to see how
(37:20):
they align together, because inChrist there is no confusion,
there is no Babel, there is nodarkness, there is no lie.
I look at multiple primarysources to help understand the
full doctrine, in this caseconcerning baptism.
However, if you research this,you will find the following bit
(37:44):
of information that you may ormay not be aware of, and I
remember I think I ran into thisyears ago and I you know, for
this particular podcast.
I just kind of looked it upagain, so let me share it.
Some scholars I say somebecause it's a minority some
scholars think that Matthew 28: 19 was either added or modified (38:06):
undefined
to become what we have acceptedit to be in the present day, in
the name of the Father, Son andthe Holy Spirit.
Now, before I get, why do I saysome scholars say that.
Let me admit the four reasonswhy it's there.
(38:27):
Okay, these are the reasons whyscholars believe yes, it should
be there.
Basically that, yes, this is avalid writing of Matthew that he
wrote in Matthew 20 (38:40):
19.
Manuscripts are important.
Manuscripts are the originaldocuments that were used, that
were found, that recorded whatthe biblical writers had said.
So the phrase in the name ofthe Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit appears inevery known Greek manuscript of
(39:03):
Matthew.
I'll be right up front.
It says that in every Greekmanuscript of Matthew that we
have, that we are aware of, okay, including the oldest one.
The oldest manuscript that wehave of Matthew was a parchment
that was given a name CodexSinaiticus, and there's another
(39:25):
manuscript that was given thename Codex Vaticanus.
But these manuscripts of Matthew28: 19 were from the 4th
century, in other words, between300 and 400 AD.
There are no manuscriptvariations that omit the
(39:46):
Trinitarian formula.
Okay, so the people that arefor that, yes, it should be
there.
This is some of theirreasonings why and I have a
little thing I want to highlighthere because I think it's
important that the manuscriptsthat they have that are the
oldest regarding Matthew andspecific 28:19, are found in the
4th century.
(40:06):
I'm going to come back to thata little bit later, but I'm just
highlighting there.
But that's why they believethat it should be there, because
all of the manuscripts havethat phraseology.
Then you look at secondaryresearch and you see that early
Church Fathers quoted orparaphrase this verse with the
(40:26):
Trinitarian wording of Father,Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Didache has it.
Tertullian defends theTrinitarian Baptism, but this
was in 200 AD.
So this is again a hundredyears after the apostles had
already died, and they citedthis verse.
Okay, and this formula if youlook at it historically and it's
(40:52):
developed it became thestandard liturgical phrase in
Christian baptism rites.
That's another reason why theysay, oh yeah, it should be there
.
That's a valid thing, becausewe see that in the Christian
baptism rites of the earlycenturies of first, second,
third and fourth centuryActually not even the first,
because the first had adifferent thing altogether and
(41:15):
then they also consider that,yes, it should be there, because
Matthew's theological stylefrequently uses triads and the
structures involving Father, sonand Spirit.
So they have no quibble, theyhave no qualm that yes, it
should be there.
So let me give you some of thereasons why some scholars and I
say some because I think it's aminority, it's some say ah, we
(41:37):
got some questions about it.
There was a man named Eusebius.
He lived between 260 and 340 AD, again 150 years after the
apostles had already died.
We have this man named Eusebiuswho frequently quotes Matthew
20 and 19, but he omitted oftenthe Trinitarian formula and
(41:59):
instead of writing in the nameof the Father, Son and the Holy
Spirit, he says go and makedisciples of all nations in my
name.
Why would he do that?
I don't know If it's valid andif it's correct, maybe because
he just didn't want to writethat whole phraseology and he
just said in my name because heunderstood what it meant.
I don't know.
So, because there's some recordfrom secondary research
(42:25):
material, this has led some toargue that the original wording
was simply in my name and theTrinitarian formula was a later
liturgical addition.
Then they have a little caveatthat says but Eusebius also
quotes the full Trinitarianversion at least once, and
(42:45):
possibly after the Council ofNicaea in 325 AD.
Hmm, that's interesting to note.
Okay, we're going to have tocome back to that as well later.
So there's many documents thatshow that Eusebius doesn't quote
in the name of the Father, Son,and the Holy Spirit, he just
(43:06):
says in my name.
And then there is a quote wherehe fully quotes the Trinitarian
version, but that was possiblyafter the Council of Nicaea in
325 AD Again, 200 years afterthe apostles had already died.
Interesting.
So one of the other reasonsthat they're against this is
(43:30):
that there just seems to be alack of this Trinitarian
language elsewhere.
And that goes back to myprimary source material.
Nowhere in the Old Testament.
Is there any evidence that thisTrinitarian formula was ever
used in baptism?
Acts 2.38, repent and every oneof you be baptized in the name
(43:52):
of Jesus Christ.
Acts 10.48, baptized in thename of Jesus Christ.
I didn't even bring this one up.
Romans, chapter 6, verse 3,when it talks about what is the
reason and the purpose forbaptism giving a deeper
knowledge and understanding ofbaptism.
Paul was explaining we'rebaptized into Christ Jesus.
He doesn't even say we werebaptized into the name of the
(44:13):
Father, son and the Holy Spirit,christ Jesus.
No, he says baptized intoChrist Jesus.
You can see that for yourself.
And then scholars argue thatthis suggests that the early
church primarily baptized in thename of Jesus.
They did not use theTrinitarian formula.
And then some people argue thatthe phrasing is too polished
(44:34):
and liturgical for Jesus'stypical speech.
He just didn't talk.
Jesus himself didn't talk thatway.
So it suggests that maybe therewas a later edit inserting and
aligning this emergingTrinitarian theology and we keep
(45:00):
running into that tree withinthe 300s but that it seems to be
parallel along with that thatthe method of baptism became
this Trinitarian formula becausethey readily recognize it
didn't start that way.
So it says here the formaldoctrine of the Trinity wasn't
articulated.
(45:21):
Listen, listen very carefully.
The doctrine of the Trinity aswe know it today and it's been
changed, tweaked a little bithere and there, but the formal
doctrine was established, wascodified, if you will, in 325 AD
(45:43):
in the Nicene Council.
And so some argue that theformula reflects this more
developed theology that wouldhave not been present in the
first century Palestine, becausethis theology of the Trinity
was not, was not in firstcentury Palestine.
(46:10):
So, in summary, there's twopositions, scholarly positions.
You have the conservativescholars on one side, which I
think it's kind of funny.
I'll explain that in a second.
You have the conservativescholars that argue that the
overwhelming manuscript andpatristic evidence supports the
authenticity of in the name ofFather, son and the Holy Spirit,
(46:32):
and they explain why Eusebius'shorter quotes as just being
paraphrases or abbreviations,because no one really knows why
he wouldn't just write the wholething Okay.
And I find it funny that theysay conservative scholars argue
for keeping this the way it'swritten.
Yet when we think ofconservative, we think of
(46:53):
conservative means you keep itthe way that it originally was
Conserve Progressives want tochange, want to modify, want to
reframe, want to restate it in adifferent way for progress sake
.
So that's just an oxymoron thatthe conservative scholar want
(47:16):
to argue that they should keepit the changed way rather than
the original way.
Okay, so that's just my littleyou know.
Add on there.
But then they say the secondscholarly position, which is the
critical scholars, critical tothe authenticity of in the name
of the Father, son and HolySpirit.
They believe that it originatedas a baptismal liturgy that the
(47:37):
early church developed and thenthey retroactively placed it in
Jesus' lips in Matthew.
Again, there's no proof thatthis happened.
Now there's another interestingnote that I think should be
added to this, and I think Isaid this earlier the earliest
(48:00):
manuscripts of Matthew come fromthe 3rd century.
Now many of those manuscriptsare in fragments, meaning that
the whole of Matthew as we knowit today was not in that
manuscript.
That fragment that came fromthe third century, meaning in
(48:23):
the 200s.
They have pieces of Matthew.
Actually, the oldest piece ofMatthew that we have only has
Matthew chapter 1, verses 1through 9, and then it has verse
12, and then it has verse 14through 20.
That's the oldest parchmentthat we have, and then over time
(48:45):
we have different parchmentsthat we, I guess, over time
we've kind of come together torealize oh, this is the whole
letter that Matthew wrote.
And so in my research, I foundthe following piece of
information, and I highlight ithere because it's interesting to
note and be aware of theearliest manuscript of the verse
Matthew 28 19, is found in twoCodex Sinaiticus and Codex
(49:25):
Vaticanus, and both of thosedate near the middle of the
fourth century.
For those of you that have ahard time figuring out what the
fourth century, that meansbetween 325 and 350 AD, do we
have the earliest manuscript ofthe verse Matthew 28: 19 in the
name of the Father, Son, and theHoly Spirit?
I find that rather convenient,guys, that the only manuscript
(49:53):
that has in the name of theFather, Son and the Holy Spirit,
Matthew 28 (49:56):
19, the oldest manuscript, happens to be after
the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
Coincidence, I'll let youdecide.
(50:16):
You be the judge of that.
As for me, the internal evidenceis sufficient.
Be critical of those who wantto move or remove landmarks in
the name of progress orenlightenment, if it conflicts
with the explicit statementsfound in the scripture, the
primary source material, thenrecognize the wile of the devil
(50:42):
and be on the alert.
He's up to something, the devil, and be on the alert.
He's up to something and Iguarantee you that whatever he's
up to it will not be good forus.
Let's not fall like Eve did inquestioning the Word of God, nor
ignore its many testimonies.
(51:03):
I echo Paul's sentiments when hesaid testimonies.
I echo Paul's sentiments whenhe said indeed, let God be true,
but every man a liar.
Amen.
If you were blessed andappreciate listening to this
podcast and you would like tosupport us in our efforts,
consider lifting us up in prayerfirst.
(51:23):
Then remember these four socialmedia buzzwords share, like,
subscribe or follow.
Share this podcast link withsomeone else by text, email or
word of mouth in the hopes thatthey might be uplifted, as you
were Like by leaving a positiverating or review with whomever
you listen to our podcast, withSubscribe to support the show
monetarily with the link in ourpodcast description.
(51:45):
Follow us on all our socialmedia platforms.
May God bless you and make youprosperous in Him, as you listen
and obey His voice.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.