The episode discusses the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and its meaning in the context of Scripture. It explores different ways of understanding this phrase and how it relates to the concept of the Godhead. The episode encourages viewers to check out additional resources on GodHonestTruth.com for more information. The series aims to educate viewers about the Godhead and allow them to make their own decision about which concept they agree with. It emphasizes that salvation is not dependent on a specific understanding of the Godhead. The episode also briefly recaps previous episodes in the series and mentions parallel passages in Mark and Luke that have variations of the phrase. The focus of the episode is on the act of baptism and the singular word "name" in Matthew 28:19.
The phrase, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. We all think we know what this means. We've heard it growing up in church. We probably heard it in baptismal ceremonies. But do we really know what it means in the context of Scripture and how it harmonizes with the rest of Scripture? That's what we're covering in this episode, continuing in the Godhead series. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
So this teaching is going to be all about the phrase, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. As it comes from Matthew, chapter 28, verse 19. How that relates to the Godhead, some ways of understanding it, and which way kind of makes the most sense in harmonizing with the rest of Scripture. So definitely make sure to have your notebook out and your pen or pencil ready. And if you'd like some more notes than what we've got here to present to you tonight, go check out the article post on GodHonestTruth.com.
There you can find the on-demand video that you see here on the screen. You'll be able to find the dross slides that are also on the screen. You'll be able to find the notes that we took for this subject. And you'll also be able to find the transcript if that is important to you. And the notes that we took for this dross is going to be more encompassing than what the information is that we present to you here in this teaching.
So go check it out on GodHonestTruth.com. We'll go down below in the description and click on the conveniently provided link down there. And it should be there whether you're watching on a video platform or whether you're listening through an audio podcasting platform. Now, just to go over real quick, if you haven't seen any of the previous episodes, the purpose of this series is to start you, the viewer, even from a place of knowing absolutely nothing about the Godhead.
You'll learn what Scripture says about the Godhead, all the various parts and stuff like that. And then at the end of the series, you'll be able to make your own decision as to which concept of the Godhead you most agree with, whether that be Trinitarianism, Benetarianism, Biblical Unitarianism, or Oneness. But you can also go the route of not selecting any of those and saying, well, it's way too involved or I don't see it's that important. And that's fine, too.
Regardless of which option you choose, you're still a brother or sister in Messiah to us. We do not care. We do not discriminate. One particular concept of the Godhead is not required for salvation. You're still brothers and sisters to us. So, just to recap what we've covered so far in this Godhead series. In Episode 1, we did the introduction and terminology of the series. We went over the purpose of the series, what the series will cover and not cover.
We learned various terminology like fear-mongering, exegesis and eisegesis, the name Yahweh, the name Yeshua, the word Elohim, and how that means God or gods in the context. We went over concepts of the Godhead, such as Trinitarianism, Benetarianism, Biblical Unitarianism, and Oneness or Modalism. Each of these concepts will get their own dedicated episode coming up in the future. But we quickly, in Episode 1, just covered the basics of each one of those. We also went over the phrases or the terms heresy and orthodoxy, what each of those are, how it relates to our study here.
And we also went over real quickly about what is salvation. But the most important thing to take away from that is that your salvation is not dependent on which concept of the Godhead that you go with. In Episode 2, we went over the word God or gods and the Hebrew word Elohim. We went over the difference between names and titles. We went over invariant nouns, the word Elohim, the word God or gods. And then in Episode 3, we went over the all-famous Shema, which is very important to all of us.
It was very important to even Yeshua. You find him quoting that in the Bereth Ha-Dashav. But anyways, in this episode on the Shema, we went over what the Shema is. We went over ordinal numbers, cardinal numbers, and the difference between unity or unified, and the word one. Specifically in Hebrew, the words Yechad and Yahid. Now, Yechad means one, senior, and Yahid means unity or unified. In Episode 4, we went over the term or the phrase son or sons of God.
How that related to basically everyday people in relation to direct descendants of people. And also in two rare instances in scripture, how it was the attributes of someone as well. We went over how that phrase relates to angels, how it relates to men, and also how it relates to our Messiah, Yeshua. In Episode 5, we went over the meaning of names. We went over what's in a name, the names of places, and examined the meaning behind those.
The names and meanings of ordinary human men. The names of women. And we also went over some further clarification and further understanding for the meaning of names in scripture. Now, if you haven't watched the previous episodes, we would invite you to go ahead and do that, so that you'll be all caught up before watching this episode. But either way, hopefully this will be a lot there to educate you with, and enlighten you, and help build you up, and so that you'll know more about the subject of the Godhead.
So now, in this episode, we're going to get into the phrase name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So make sure to have your notes ready, because here we go. Also, don't forget to check out the notes that we took that we made available for you on godhonesttruth.com. And we made a specific and unique article post just for this dross with just those notes. So go check it out today on godhonesttruth.com. Anyways, we're going to start out with the verse that is the subject of tonight's dross.
And that is Matthew 28, verse 19. Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Set-apart Spirit. Hopefully everyone is familiar with this verse already. But we've heard various translations, and we've heard it pretty much all throughout our lives, if we have some sort of Christian or Messianic background. Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Set-apart Spirit.
Now this is the only time you find this phrase in all of Scripture. This is the one single unique time. However, there are a few parallel passages or similar passages that go along with this. And those are, number one, in Mark chapter 16, verses 14-18, which sort of parallels but not exactly the passage we find in Matthew chapter 28, verses 16-19. In both of these passages, you have the indication that the 11 remaining disciples are there, that Yeshua is speaking to them, and that he said to baptize or go out in a certain name.
Now, in the Matthew passage, it has, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Set-apart Spirit. But in the Mark passage, it has, in my name, meaning in the name of Yeshua. Now this is a point of clarification. Mark 16, the ending of Mark, is actually up in dispute when it comes to scholars. This is actually a later edition, and Mark is not actually as long as we have it today. For further information on that, I would definitely advise you to go and do your own research on the dispute over the ending of Mark.
To keep this drosh short, I mean, it's already almost 70 slides long. It would have been a lot longer if we went into detail on that dispute. But we do invite you to go and check that out and research for yourself on that dispute over the ending of Mark. Another similar passage comes to us from Luke chapter 24, verses 33-49. And just like the passage in Matthew 28, verses 16-19, the 11 remaining apostles are mentioned. It talks about Yeshua speaking to them.
But, just like in the passage with Mark, instead of the name of the Father and the Son of the Holy Spirit, instead, in the passage in Luke, it says, in His name. Referring to the name of Yeshua. So, there are, I would consider it, very drastic distinctions between the passage in Matthew and the other two similar passages. Decide for yourself exactly how important that is. But, it's also worthy to note that Matthew chapter 28, verse 19, just to reiterate, that's the only time that phrase is found throughout all of Scripture.
We'll get more into that in just a moment. But anyways, on this particular verse, this particular passage, Matthew chapter 28, verse 19, Now, two things we're going to be focusing on, primarily during the course of this drash, or this teaching, is baptizing, or mercying, and that singular word, name. Notice you have three different, if these, if you will, that are referred to after that. So, you would think it should be in the plural, but actually, name is in the singular.
So, we're going to focus on those two points, the immersion of baptizing in Scripture, and also the singular word, name. So, in Scripture, we get several examples, actually, of the disciples going forth and baptizing people. Now, before we get into those examples, let's go back and look at Matthew chapter 28, verses 16 through 19, one more time, to understand and get a better grasp on who it was that actually heard Yeshua say these things. Matthew chapter 28, verses 16 through 19.
And the eleven taught ones went away into Galil, to the mountain which Yeshua had appointed for them. And when they saw them, they bowed to him, but some doubted. And Yeshua came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Set-apart Spirit. So, Yeshua came up and spoke to them.
We get that clearly and distinctly from the passage. But who was it that heard them? Who was it that he was speaking to? It was the remaining eleven disciples. As you can see here on your screen, that would be Peter, James, Philip, Thomas, James, Simon, Andrew, John, Bartholomew, Matthew, and Thaddeus. Those are the eleven remaining disciples at this point after Judas went and hung himself. The two in particular that we're going to focus on is one listed here, Peter, and also the Apostle Paul.
But anyways, looking at Acts chapter 2, verse 38, And Jephthah, or Peter, said to them, Repent, and let each one of you be immersed in the name of Yeshua Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Set-apart Spirit. So, how did Peter baptize someone? Did he baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? That wasn't the words for what we're told here. What we're told here is that he baptized them in the name of Yeshua.
Going on to Acts chapter 10, verses 46-48, Then Jephthah, or Peter, answered, Is anyone able to forbid water, that these should not be immersed who have received the Set-apart Spirit, even as also we? And he commanded them to be immersed in the name of Yeshua Messiah. Then they asked him to remain a few days. So, once again, it's in the singular name of Yeshua Messiah. Going on to Acts chapter 19, verses 4-5, And Sha'ul, or Paul, said, Yohanan, meaning John the Baptist, indeed emerged with an immersion of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one who is coming after him, that is, in Messiah Yeshua.
And when they heard this, they were immersed into the name of the Master Yeshua. So, even Paul here, after he had the vision on the road to Damascus, was, what I believe, taught by Yeshua himself, when he went and commanded them to be immersed, they were immersed into the name of Yeshua. That's how they baptized in the scriptures. Romans chapter 6, verse 3, a letter by Paul. Quote, So, once again, Paul is referencing baptism, but he's only referencing baptism into the name of Messiah Yeshua.
And that's it. Period. And there's actually other verses you can go look up and find for yourself in scripture, or look in the notes that we took. But every single time you find someone being baptized in scripture, it's always in the name of Yeshua. So, keep that in mind. Remember Matthew chapter 28, verse 19. Remember how people got baptized in scripture. It's all going to come together, and we'll put it all together at the end for a better understanding of what this verse and this phrase actually means.
But moving on to the word name, and how name in scripture doesn't always mean the actual letters that someone uses to indicate their individuality. No. In scripture, a lot of times, name means authority. When it says that someone comes in the name of, or someone is operating in the name of, or speaks in the name of, that means they're operating or speaking in the authority of the person they're referencing. For example, in 1 Samuel chapter 25, verse 9.
So here, the servants of David are going to Nabal, and they're speaking to him in the name of the king, on the authority of the king. Understand how it works? You read that passage in that story that's going on there, when they go to Nabal, David is nowhere near them. He's off somewhere else. He's already sent them to go over to Nabal. So, David is not there when they're speaking this to Nabal. They're speaking in the authority of Dawid, in the name of Dawid.
Another example of speaking in the name of the king. Esther chapter 3, verse 12. And sealed with the sovereign's signet ring. So this letter that went out, this proclamation, it was composed by Haman, but it went out in the authority of the king, King Ahasuerus. See how that works? Even though the king wasn't going out and speaking all these words to all these different people, in all these different places, this letter went out with the authority of the king.
It went out in the name of the king. Again, we see another example in scripture, but this time in the name of Yahweh. Second Kings chapter 2, verse 24. And he, speaking of Elisha, turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of Yahweh. And two female bears came out of the forest and tore to pieces 42 of the youth. So again, in the name of means with the authority of, or in using the authority of.
Here, Elisha used the authority of Yahweh to pronounce this curse upon these kids. Once again, Yeshua also uses the same language in the Brit Hadashah. John chapter 5, verse 43. I have come in my father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you would receive him. So here, Yeshua says that he's coming in his father's name. He's coming in his father's authority. Back in that passage in Matthew chapter 28, If you remember, Yeshua said that all authority has been given to him.
He's coming in the name, or in the authority of his father Yahweh. Once again, another example. First Corinthians chapter 1, verse 13-15. The letter of Paul, and he says, Has the Messiah been divided? Was Shaul impaled for you? Or were you immersed in the name of Shaul? I thank Elohim, I immerse not one of you, except Christos and Gaius, that no one should say that I immerse into my own name. So, why is Paul all concerned about people thinking that they were baptized into the name of Paul? Man, something to consider.
But think about this as with the meaning of, in the name of, meaning the authority of. Here Paul would be saying, or were you immersed in the authority of Shaul? And he says that he's thankful to Elohim that no one should say that they were immersed into the name of Shaul. But rather, he's thanking God that they were immersed into the name of Yeshua. Into the authority of Yeshua. Because remember the word of Yeshua when he said, For you have one rabbi, one teacher, one authority.
Who is that authority he's referring to? He's referring to himself. Our rabbi, our authority is Yeshua. Not Paul, not Peter, not James, not John. Our rabbi is Yeshua. And here, Peter is, in my opinion, playing on that very sentiment. That he doesn't want them to be baptized under his authority. He thanks God that they are baptized under the authority, under the name of Yeshua Messiah. And Dr. Dustin Smith actually has a very good explanation of all this.
In his episode on Matthew chapter 28, 19. And he says, Therefore, to baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is to immerse someone in water under the authority of God the Father, that is the Creator and the God of Jesus. There to immerse someone under the authority of the Son, namely the Messiah and the Mediator of the New Covenant. And the authority of the Spirit, namely the empowering presence of the Father that marks out the people of God in this New Covenant relationship.
And in this episode, where he explores Matthew 28, 19, he goes through lots of information. If you get a chance, go check that out. The link is in the notes that we referred to before. But yeah, he's absolutely right. In the name of means in the authority of. We're baptized in the authority of Yeshua. We're baptized under the authority of the Father, Yahweh. We're baptized under the authority of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of the Holy, whichever way you want to put it.
But that's what in the name of. Name means authority a lot of times in Scripture. Think back to the Ten Commandments when we're told, do not bring the name of Yahweh to naught. What does that mean? Do not bring his authority, his character, his respect, his, what do you call it, reputation to nothing. No, respect the authority, the integrity, the respect that Yahweh deserves. Respect all that. Uphold his name. Only speak of it in good terms.
Bless him. Tell other people how awesome he is and what he has done for you. But do not bring the name or the authority or the reputation of Yahweh to naught. One more thing to consider, just to go along with what we're talking about here, as far as name meaning authority, we look at 1 Corinthians 10, verses 1-2. For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the clouds and all passed to the sea and all were immersed into Moshe, in the clouds and in the sea.
So all those back then that came out of Egypt, the Exodus, that were following Moses, they were baptized into the authority of Moses because he was the mediator back then between them and Yahweh. So here when they're saying that these people were immersed or baptized into Moshe, they were baptized under the authority of Moshe because Yeshua had not walked the earth at that point. So now moving on to the point of name, singular word name, for multiple people.
This seems rather odd in our English language but it's actually used many times throughout scripture. Don't believe me? Check this out. Genesis chapter 48, verse 16. The messenger who has redeemed me, meaning Yisrael or Jacob, from all evils, bless the youth and let my name be called upon them and the name of my fathers Abraham and Meshach and let them increase to a multitude in the midst of the earth. So here Jacob is blessing Ephraim and Manasseh and he says let them be called upon and let his name be called upon them and also the name, singular, of his fathers, plural, referring to Abraham and Isaac.
In English it would be something like and let my name be called upon them and the names of my fathers Abraham and Meshach. And some translations actually translate it this way. For instance, you see it there on screen for the Legacy Standard Bible. In the English translation it says and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac. But down in the footnote it tells you that in the Hebrew it's actually in the singular. And for those of you who understand any Hebrew you can look right there and I've got the passage highlighted and you can see the word Shem in the singular.
Once again, 1 Samuel chapter 17, verse 13. And the three eldest sons of Jesse go. They have gone after Saul to battle. And the name of his three sons who have gone into battle are Eliab, the firstborn, and the second, Abinadab, and the third, Shammah. So here you've got three different people that are referred to, but they're referring to them with the singular word name. Once again, the name of his three sons. We wouldn't say that in English.
But if you see here on your screen the Hebrew is the word Shem. Not Shemot, which would be the plural. No, here it's got Shem, the name of his three sons. Again, Proverbs chapter 10, verse 7. The remembrance of the righteous is blessed, but the name of the wrong ones rots. Again, in English we would say the names of the wrong ones. But no, here in the actual scriptures it's using the singular name, Shem. Name of the wrong ones.
And again, remember the section that we just went over where name means authority. And the passages that we just covered. So, just to show you that the scriptures actually does use the plural form of names, which would be names in English, but in Hebrew it's Shemot. Genesis chapter 2, verse 20. So the man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field, but for the man there was not a helper for him as his counterpart.
So here it uses the plural names and even in the Hebrew it's got the plural Shemot. Remember, singular is Shem and the plural form is Shemot. So when it uses the singular Shem or name for multiple people, it's doing that intentionally. That's not a design mistake on the scroll when they were writing it down or copying it. No. They've done it intentionally. The singular name for multiple people. But again, go back and remember what we just went over as far as name meaning authority.
So now let's get into something that a lot of people, it makes them uneasy. They don't like to hear this a lot of times. I know I don't like to hear this. Just up front, I want to say this. We here at God Honest Truth, we stand by the firm conviction that the original autograph of Scripture is infallible. What do I mean by that? That the original Scripture, when it was first inbound by Peter and Paul and Luke and Moses, what they first wrote down, that first paper, that is infallible.
Now what comes down to us has been altered sometimes throughout history. It's hard to hear and you don't want to hear that, but sometimes the translations that we have today are not infallible. Like I said, we don't like to hear that. I know I don't like to hear that. But that's why I go through a lot of studies sometimes on these sorts of things so that I know what has been changed and what the truth is.
And you should really be doing the same. Question things. Go do your own research. Do some historical research. Learn some of the languages. It's not that hard. There's lots of resources online to help you with that. But go learn for yourself but understand, the original autographs are infallible. But there are some discrepancies that have come down to us today. What are some of those discrepancies? Number one, this is something called the Comma Johannium. And this comes from 1 John 5 7-8.
This is from the King James Version. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And these three agree in one. Now, this is a corruption of the original text because the section you see there that's highlighted was actually added about a little over a thousand years after the time of the apostles.
What it should correctly read as from the Scriptures 2009 translation, quote, Because there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are in agreement. Now, here's a footnote in the Scriptures 2009 states, as per early Greek text referring to what was read, it says that later manuscripts contain additions as were read before. In fact, most, if not all, modern translations now have the correct, better informed version of 1 John 5, 7, and 8.
For instance, the Tree of Life version states, For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one, or in agreement. But even though the King James Version doesn't have the addition, has the corrupted version, the modern King James Version makes a distinction telling you, or indicating that it's not actually part of the original Scriptures that was added in. Even though they still kind of keep it there. Anyways, modern King James Version, 1 John 5, 7-8.
For there are three that bear witness, in brackets, in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on the earth, in brackets, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one. So, somewhat more clear, but since it was an addition, they should have taken it out and not included it at all. But anyways, before we go, back in the 1500s, that Erasmus was putting together his version of the Greek, the Greek New Testament specifically.
But he came across these Greek manuscripts that did not have this phrase in them. So when he published his Greek New Testament, he did not include this section. Well this upset the religious powers that be. They came to him, they were pressuring him, but he kept his integrity. And he told them, you know, unless I have the Greek manuscripts that prove this is actually in there, I'm not putting it in there. But if you can prove to me, show me actual Greek manuscripts that have this, then I'll put it in my next edition.
So whoever it was, they went out, they found some Greek manuscripts, or they most likely made up their own manuscripts, brought it back to Erasmus before the ink was even dry, and showed it to him, and he believed it, so it triggered his word, and in his next edition, he put this comma johannium in there. But now we understand that this was an addition, that the earliest Greek manuscripts does not have this phrase in them. This was a later addition.
In fact, Daniel Wallace, who is a professor at Dallas, I think it is, but anyways, he says in the comma johannium, quote, This reading, the infamous comma johannium, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence, both external and internal, is decidedly against its authenticity, end quote. In other words, this section was inserted by biased people trying to push their agenda. And again, from Walter Thiel, quote, The passage first appeared as an addition to the Vulgate, the Ecclesiastical Latin translation of the Bible, and entered the Greek manuscript tradition in the 15th century.
So, from the earliest ones they have that contain this particular passage, I think it's from the 11th century, but no earlier than that. Now, you may look down on the King James translators and whatnot, but you've got to understand, they weren't working with the oldest manuscripts. They had very, very few, actually. It's only been in the hundreds of years since the King James translation that we've uncovered more manuscripts, older manuscripts. So, now we know a lot more about what the actual, or actually closer to the original autograph that the authors first wrote down.
But again, only Comma Johanium. From the Scriptures 2009 explanatory notes, Comma Johanium refers to a short clause in 1 John 5-7-8 in the Latin Vulgate text, which was transmitted since the early Middle Ages. It was later included in the Texas Receptives, that's Erasmus, that I was telling you about a while ago, in the Texas Receptives Greek in support of Trinity doctrine. The comma does not appear in the older Greek text. End quote. So yeah, this Comma Johanium was added to Scripture.
It was inserted in there for agenda purposes. To push an agenda. To uphold the tradition that had been passed down. They didn't want it any other way. They wanted their way. Instead, we should want the Scriptural way. And fortunately, this is something that scholars and translators have upheld their integrity on and taken it out of modern translations. So here's something you may not have heard before. Is there a discrepancy with the Lord's Prayer or the Our Father, as some people refer to it as.
This is in the book of Matthew as well. Just like the phrase, Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Is there a discrepancy here? Well, the traditional readings, which most of you are probably familiar with, which you probably grew up with, comes from Matthew chapter 6, verses 9 through 13. This then is the way you should pray. Our Father, who is in the heavens, let your name be set apart. Let your reign come. Let your desire be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into trial, but deliver us from the wicked one. Because yours is the reign and the power and the esteem forever. Amen. Now the discrepancy comes in on that very last phrase. Here it is again. Because yours is the reign and the power and the esteem forever. Amen. Recent research that I've come across suggests that this was actually added at a later date and wasn't the original word of Matthew when he wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
In fact, when we look at other translations, more modern translations, such as the ESV, the LSV, and the NASV 2020, it doesn't include that section or that phrase. Well, the LSV does, but it got in brackets. Anyways, according to the ESV footnote here for Matthew 6, verse 13, the ESV footnote states some manuscripts add for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. The LSV footnote adds early manuscripts omit the bracketed portion that they've got on the screen, which is for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Amen. And the NASV 2020 footnote states late manuscripts add for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. So, it appears the traditional reading that we've all come to know and memorize and probably recite over and over again is not entirely correct to the original. The earliest or the oldest manuscripts that we have do not contain that last phrase there. In fact, if we look at the oldest scripts that we've been able to find, you can look in the Nessialem, which is the most modern Greek New Testament, it does not have that last phrase in there.
The standard edition of the Syriac text of the Pashyka, which is written in Syriac, whatever you call that, Syriac and Aramaic. Anyways, it does not have the last portion as well. And the Vulgata Clementina, which is the Vulgate, does not have that either. So, modern scholarship has realized that last portion of the Lord's Prayer that we've all come to know and memorized and all that good stuff, that last portion is also not in there. It is a later edition that has since been discovered, even though for centuries, we thought it was there.
Continuing on, how does this relate to our study of Matthew 28-19? Well, we saw that editions have been made before. We saw it with the Kama Johannion. We saw it with the Lord's Prayer, as we've seen here. So, we know it's been done and we also know it's been done in the book of Matthew. The very book that we get Matthew 28-19 from. So, is there other discrepancies that we haven't heard about or learned about yet? And could there actually be a Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew? This brings us to the Shem Tov, or the Shem Tov.
Now, early writers, when you look back in history, what they called church fathers. I don't really like that term. Anyway, early writers actually referenced a Hebrew text that was originally written by Matthew. For instance, Eusebius writes in church history, book 6, chapter 25, section 4, quote, Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language.
End quote. Again, another quote by Eusebius from his church history work, quote, Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his gospel to writing in his native tongue, i.e. Hebrew, and thus compensated those whom he was obligated to leave for the loss of his presence. End quote. And once again, another quote by Eusebius in his work church history, quote, but concerning Matthew, he, Papias, writes as follows, So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and everyone interpreted them as he was able.
End quote. Here Eusebius is quoting Papias. Now Papias was a contemporary of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, the apostle John. So that goes back to the beginning, almost. But anyways, Papias writes that Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. So we've got references already to there being a Hebrew gospel of Matthew. Again, Jerome writes, quote, Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.
I'm sorry, that was Arrhenius. This is Jerome, quote, End quote. So we've got multiple references already in the early centuries, in the first four centuries that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. But the oldest text we have today are all in Greek. So, what does this all mean? Well, continuing on, let's reference back to Matthew chapter 28, verses 18-20. And Yeshua came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Set-apart Spirit, teaching them to guard all that I have commanded you, and see, I am with you always until the end of the age. Amen. Now, this is a traditional reading from a translation that comes from the oldest Greek text that we have. Keep that in mind. Now, let's look at the Shem Tov, or the Hebrew gospel of Matthew.
Matthew chapter 28, verses 18-20 from the Shem Tov. Jesus drew near to them and said to them, To me has been given all power in heaven and earth. Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever. Drastically different here. It does not include that phrase in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It doesn't even tell them to go and baptize everyone. So, it's drastically different.
But, could this be the actual Hebrew gospel of Matthew? We'll see. Anyway, comparing the traditional reading to Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, again, you can see drastic differences there, especially in verse 19, where in Shem Tov's Matthew, it's only got the word go. But, in the traditional reading, coming from the Greek text, it says, Therefore God will make all the disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Set-apart Spirit.
Drastically different. But, some things to keep in mind, some things to note about the Shem Tov. Number one, there are other Hebrew texts out there besides the Shem Tov. You have things like the Deutale, which was produced in 1555. You have the Sebastian Munster edition, which was produced in 1557. Now, this Shem Tov was produced in 1380, as part of a work called the Ebon Boshad, or otherwise known as the Touchstone. An important thing to note about the Touchstone is that it was a piece of anti-Christian religious material.
And, the Shem Tov was just one part of this work. Keep that in mind. That this was part of an anti-Christian work, and it was actually produced by a Spanish Jewish rabbi named Shem Tov Ben Isaac Ben Shaprut. Also, something to think about, this was produced in 1380. This was 1300 years after Matthew originally wrote the Gospel of Matthew. So, the question becomes, where did it go for almost 1300 years? We have references from early writers that it existed, but we don't have Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew in our possession now that date back that far, or at least as far as I know.
So, where did it go for 1000 years? Why is it just silent? Why is there not multiple copies like we have of the Greek text? So, that's two things to keep in mind. Number one, that it was produced as part of anti-Christian literature, which doesn't necessarily make it false. I mean, it could have been true to the translation. And, number two, it was missing for almost 1300 years. But, that is a minor point, as you'll see here in a moment, when we come up to our next topic of the Didache.
Now, if you've never heard this word before, or heard of this word called the Didache, here's a little bit of information on it. It was, or I'm sorry, it is dated back as early as 50 CE and as late as I think some put it in like the late 3rd century. But, most range it from like 50 CE to the middle of the 1st century. Anyways, it's probably one of the earliest, if not the earliest, Christian writings that we have.
Didache itself means teaching. It's also known as the Lord's teaching to the 12 Apostles to the nations. And, it was lost for centuries. According to John Chapman, lost for centuries, a Greek manuscript of the Didache was rediscovered in 1873 by Philotheus Briaminos in the Codex here, I didn't pronounce that, in the Codex, a compilation of text of the Apostolic Fathers found in the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulcher in Constantinople. So, this Didache was written probably in the 1st century.
Probably right along with the Apostles when they were writing their letters. But, it was lost all the way up until 1873. So, the Shemtov, if it's authentic, Shemtov was lost for almost 1300 years. But, the Didache was lost for over 1800 years. However, we consider it to be authentic. It's not scripture, but it is authentic and it is real. And, unfortunately, it's in Greek as well. It's compared to Shemtov, which is in Hebrew. But, anyways, according to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, the text was lost, but scholars knew of it through the writing of later Church Fathers, some of whom had drawn heavily on it.
So, just like the Hebrew text of Matthew, early writers also referenced the Didache as well. So, we knew it existed before it was even found in 1873. For example, Eusebius in his Church History writes, quote, And, besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seemed proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books, end quote. So, Eusebius, amongst a whole host of others, references the Didache early, early on, way before 1873.
But, as far as it relates to our subject tonight, of Matthew, chapter 28, verse 19, here, the traditional reading reads, And the Didache, remember how early it was written, possibly as early as 50 CE, the Didache says, quote, And the Didache, remember how early it was written, the Didache says, quote, So, as early as back in maybe even 50 CE, the Didache and possibly other writings are stating this longer form of baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and in living water.
I'm sorry. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in living water. So, pretty much lining up with exactly what Matthew says. But, the Didache also says something a little bit different. It went on in the Didache, quote, But let no one eat or drink of your thanksgiving, meaning the Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, end quote. So, here it says, in the singular name of one person, the name of the Lord, meaning Jesus or Yeshua.
So, it has it both ways. And remember, in Scripture, we only have one way where it says, I'm sorry, one verse in all of Scripture where it says, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Every other instance in Scripture of baptism is always in the name, singular, of Yeshua. That's it. However, we've got one instance in the Didache of the longer form, and one instance of the shorter form. So, which one is right? Which one is wrong? Are they both wrong? Are they both right? And we're just not understanding it? How does all that go? How did early church fathers, or I'm sorry, scratch that.
How did early church writers address this issue when they were writing? Did they use the longer form, or did they use the shorter form? Well, Arrhenius writes in his book, Against Heresies, quote, and again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, end quote. Tertullian, in his work De Baptismo, quote, for there has been imposed a law of baptizing in its form prescribed, go, he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, end quote.
And finally, Tertullian in his work Description Against Heretics, quote, and when one of them was cut off upon his leaving the world and going up to the Father after his resurrection, he commissioned the remaining eleven to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, end quote. So here you can see some of the early church writers using that longer form like we see in the traditional reading of Matthew chapter 28 verse 19.
However, other writers use the shorter form, such as Eusebius in his work Demonstratio Evangelica, quote, with one word and voice he said to his disciples, go and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and he joined the effect to his word, end quote. Then also Eusebius in his work Church History, quote, but the rest of the apostles who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the gospels, relying upon the power of Christ who had said to them, go and make disciples of all the nations in my name, end quote.
So here, Eusebius is using the shortened form and baptizing just in the name of Yeshua, not in the longer form. So we've got evidence both of the longer form and the shorter form in early church writers. And here are two examples from Eusebius using the shortened form, however Eusebius did also use the longer form. Eusebius in his work Theophonia, quote, but he drew near to them, spoke with them and said, all power both in heaven and earth is given to me of my Father.
Go ye and make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world, end quote. So, Eusebius he used both forms. Both the longer form and the shorter form. So how does this help us in our understanding of Matthew 28 19 in the phrase in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We saw that there were additions to scripture over the years. We saw that with the Kama Jehoniam and the Lord's Prayer. So is this an example of adding to scripture? Well, we see in the Didache and in the early writings, the early writers they're using that longer form that we find in the traditional reading of Matthew. So, which way is it? How do we understand that? How do we reconcile the longer form that we find in Matthew but yet in the example given to us by the apostles when they're baptizing people they only do it in the name of Yeshua.
How do we reconcile that? How do we understand it? Well, here is some further information that may or may not help you. Hopefully it does help you. I'm sorry. Hopefully it does help you. But this is information from both sides of the issue. So, anyways, from the Encyclopedia Britannica, on their entry for baptism, quote, unquote. And we follow that with the teaching of the apostles, the Didache, where it uses the longer form and the shorter form.
The Jerusalem Bible, which is a Catholic production, in their footnotes for Matthew chapter 28, verse 19, quote, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing in the name of Jesus. But whatever the variation in the formula, the underlying reality remains the same, end quote. Now this is starting to get more to the heart of how I kind of understand it, is that even though we find that in Scripture, in Matthew, the understanding is that when people were baptized, they were baptized in the name of Yeshua.
And this is sort of going along with that very same understanding. Going on to the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, quote, The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28, 19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus saying on baptism, end quote. Now here's something that you'll find if you start researching this. There are some scholars who say that no, that is not a saying of Jesus, inferring that it was probably added in later, sort of like the common or the ending of the Lord's Prayer.
But you'll find plenty of other scholars who say that, yeah, it is authentic, and it's the true text of Matthew 28, 19. So, when you get out there, you find scholars on both sides of the issue. Looking at the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, quote, Was baptism instituted by Jesus? Two synoptic passages associate baptism with a command to preach the gospel throughout the world. Of these, Mark 16, 16, Black's original authority, which we went over before, says it occurs in the verses added in the second century.
The other passage, Matthew 28, 19, has also been disputed on textual grounds. But in the opinion of many scholars, the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether they may be regarded as ipsisima verba, meaning the very words, of Jesus. The evidence of Acts in Galatians and Romans suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered not in threefold names, but in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord Jesus.
End quote. So, there you have it. You have scholars on both sides of the issue. You have scholars who say 28, 19 was not the original words, not what Jesus actually spoke. Other scholars stand, yeah, that's actually true to the text of Matthew. So, there you go. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions for yourself. Don't let me or anyone else influence you, because at the end of the day, you will answer for you.
You will answer if you're a man and a father, you will answer for your family, too. You can't just say, oh, well someone told me this to believe it, so that's what I believe, that's what I went on. No, you've got to decide for yourself. But, in summary, for those of you who would like it, or are interested, my personal thoughts on this subject of Matthew 28, 19, but again, don't go on my understanding. Don't go on what I believe or how I understand it.
Decide for yourself. Do your own research. Take the information we have given you here. Look at the extra notes that we have on this subject. Do your own research. Find even more information. But, as I see it, there are four options regarding Matthew 28, 19. Number one, Jesus got it wrong. God forbid. Okay? He did not get it wrong. The disciples got it wrong. Option number two, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote down what they wrote down.
They were there when Yeshua told them all that he told them. All throughout his ministry. So, I definitely know that Yeshua did not get it wrong. I'm extremely confident that the disciples did not get it wrong. Option three, Matthew 28, 19, is a modification or addition to the text of the Gospel of Matthew. Remember, we saw addition through the Common Jehonim and the ending of the Lord's Prayer. So, that's option three. That's actually an addition or a modification.
Or, option number four, we just don't understand it correctly. We're just going on our traditional understanding that's been handed down to us, and we don't understand how Matthew 28, 19 reconciles and harmonizes with the other examples of baptism that we have in the Baruch Hadashah. The way I understand it, and the way I'm going with this right now, is I'm going with option number four. Is that we just traditionally don't understand it correctly. And that Matthew 28, 19 is authentic.
The reason I say that is because we have not found a manuscript or a text that dates back to the early years that's in Hebrew that tells us anything different. We do not have a text of the Gospel of Matthew in Greek. Any manuscripts or anything like that that date back to the early centuries, the early days that says anything different than the Greek text that we have now. So, the evidence as I see it, currently is not there to throw out Matthew 28, 19 like we have the evidence for the Kama Johanim, or the evidence for the Lord's Prayer, or for the ending of Mark.
We don't have that evidence as it relates to Matthew 28, 19. So, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because we found other things that were incorrect doesn't mean that everything is incorrect or things that we don't like are incorrect. We have to understand it correctly. We have to educate ourselves, further our walk, further our education, our understanding, further our wisdom, and knowing the Scriptures. So, I do think that Matthew 28, 19 is authentic, that it was actually there, that's the evidence we have nowadays, and that Jesus, or Yeshua, actually was giving them a command to go out into all the nations, but he wasn't giving them some sort of Harry Potter magical incantation for how to baptize.
He wasn't giving them the liturgy, the words to actually say during baptism. And the disciples didn't think so either. Because when they baptized people, they didn't baptize according to the words of Matthew 28, 19, they baptized in the name of Yeshua. They understood what Yeshua said as baptizing them under the authority of. So, they went forth and baptized under the authority of Yeshua, under the authority, I'm sorry, in the name of Yeshua. So, you see how this all relates? Anyway, that's just my two cents.
You decide for yourself. You come to your own conclusions. If you come to something different, hey, that's fine. We still welcome you. We'll still break bread with you. You're still our brothers and sisters in Yeshua. But here's the information that we'll present in tonight. There's more information in our notes, and there's more information even outside of that. So, if we don't have something provided for you, as far as information goes, or if you have something to add, make sure to send it to us through our email at teamatgodhonesttruth.com or leave it down below in the notes, I'm sorry, in the comments section under the video.
But, in summary of tonight's teaching, name is commonly used in Scripture to denote authority. When we overlook Scripture, we saw it for ourselves. The singular name, or Shem in Hebrew, is used in Scripture in multiple places. The singular word is used to refer to multiple people. The ending of 1 John 5-7, better known as the Kama Jehaniam, was an insertion, or an addition, to the original text. The ending of the Lord's Prayer was added. It was also an insertion or an addition.
The Shem Tov, as I and a lot of other people currently see it, is currently questionable as to its authenticity. The Dedicate is one of the earliest writings outside of Scripture and it uses both the longer form, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it also uses the shorter form, in the name of Jesus. Early writers referenced both the longer form of Matthew 28-19 and also the shorter form, or in the name of Jesus.
Immersion, or baptism, in Scripture, in the Bride of Shad, was only ever done in the name of Yeshua. That's the example given to us and that is just the God honest truth. Thank you for joining us for this teaching. It might have slipped on some toes, but sorry, that's sometimes the truth does that. We do hope, however, that you got something out of this, that you learned something new, and like we said before, go check out the article post on GodHonestTruth.com for the On Demand video, the Drash slides, and the notes for this particular Drash.
Make sure to go down below and comment and let us know what you thought of this teaching. Did we miss anything? Did we get something wrong? Let us know down there in the comments while you're down there. Also make sure to hit that like button, hit the subscribe button, and ring the bell, and also hit that share button and share it around with someone that you may know. Thank you for joining us for another production from God Honest Truth Ministries.
We really do appreciate your time and hope that we have been of service to you. If you have any feedback then please reach out to us by writing to team at GodHonestTruth.com and make sure to visit our website for more information on our social media links, audio bibles, teaching resources, and so much more.
