Matthew 28:18-20 Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) of 1862
And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, ‘Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth; 19 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them — to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,)* and lo, I am with you all the days — till the full end of the age.’
*Parentheses in Bible translations are sometimes used to aid the reader to make sense of the English text. Many times, but not always, the words in parentheses are not found in the original text. It’s up to the reader to determine if the parenthetical text may have been added based on context, other supporting biblical text, or historical facts.
BAPTISM, The Baptismal Formula.
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
11TH edition (1910), Vol 3, Pg 365-366, Section 5
…The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The Teaching of the Apostles, indeed, prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid. From Pope Zachariah (Ep. x.) we learn that the Celtic missionaries in baptizing omitted one or more persons of the Trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the church of Rome anathematized them; Pope Nicholas, however (858-867), in the Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum (Answers to the consultation of the Bulgarians), allowed baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi (only in the name of Christ), as in the Acts. Basil, in his work On the Holy Spirit just mentioned, condemns “baptism into the Lord alone ” as insufficient. Baptism “into the death of Christ” is often specified by the Armenian fathers as that which alone was essential.
Ursinus, an African monk (in Gennad. de Scr. Eccl. xxvii.), Hilary (de Synodis, Ixxxv.), the synod of Nemours (A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid. The formula of Rome is, “I baptize thee in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” In the East, ” so-and-so, the servant of God, is baptized,” &c. The Greeks add Amen after each person, and conclude with the words, “Now and ever and to aeons of aeons, amen.”
We first find in Tertullian trine immersion explained from the triple invocation, Nam nee semel, sed ler, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur: “Not once, but thrice, for the several names, into the several persons, are we dipped ” (adv. Prax. xxvi.). And Jerome says: “We are thrice plunged, that the one sacrament of the Trinity may be shown forth.” On the other hand, in numerous fathers of East and West, e.g. Leo of Rome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylactus, Cyril of Jerusalem and others, trine immersion was regarded as being symbolic of the three days’ entombment of Christ; and in the Armenian baptismal rubric this interpretation is enjoined, as also in an epistle of Macarius of Jerusalem addressed to the Armenians (c. 330). In Armenian writers this interpretation is further associated with the idea of baptism into the death of Christ.
Trine immersion then, as to the origin of which Basil confesses his ignorance, must be older than either of the rival explanations. These are clearly aetiological, and invented to explain an existing custom, which the church had adopted from its pagan medium. For pagan lustrations were normally threefold; thus Virgil writes (Aen. vi. 229): Ter socios pura circumtulit unda. Ovid (Met. vii. 189 and Fasti, iv. 315), Persius (ii. 16) and Horace (Ep. i. i. 37) similarly speak of trine lustrations; and on the last mentioned passage the scholiast Aero remarks: “He uses the words thrice purely, because people in expiating their sins, plunge themselves in thrice.” Such examples of the ancient usage encounter us everywhere in Greek and Latin antiquity.
BAPTISM, CHRISTIAN
CANNEY’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS
(1970), Pg 53
Whereas Jewish baptism was thought of only as a means of getting rid of ceremonial uncleanness. Christian baptism was regarded as “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Jesus allowed himself to be baptised by John the Baptist. He did not himself baptise, however, and it has been questioned whether he himself instituted the rite. True, he is represented as having done so. In Matthew 28:19, he is represented as saying to his disciples when he appeared to them after his crucifixion: “Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” In Mark 16:16 we are told that he said: “He that believeth and is baptized will be saved; but he that disbelieveth will be damned.” But there is evidence that the passage in Matthew’s Gospel has been edited, and the passage in Mark’s Gospel belongs to the last twelve verses which are widely recognised now to be a later addition. At any rate, the Christian community adopted the rite at an early date. When Peter appealed to the multitude on the day of Pentecost, saying, “Repent ye, and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ” (Acts 2:38), about three thousand persons are said to have been baptised…Persons were baptized at first “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48) or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5). Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (cp. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61).
BAPTISM
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
(1899), Volume 1, 473
In the name of Jesus Christ, or of the Lord Jesus. The former expression is used in (Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48); the latter in (Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5); cp also Acts 22:16, ‘Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.’ From these passages, and from Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11:3 (‘Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’), it is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times ‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ or in that ‘of the Lord Jesus.’ This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single – not triple, as was the later creed…On the other hand, we have in Matthew 28:19 the full formula, ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ We have no synoptic parallel at this point; and thus, from a documentary point of view, we must regard this evidence as posterior to that of Paul’s Epistles and of Acts. The apparent contradiction was felt by Cyprian, who suggested (Ep. 7317 f.) that in baptizing Jews the apostles may have been contented with the one name of the Lord Jesus Christ, as they already believed in the Father; whilst in baptizing Gentiles they used the full formula, which was given (as he points out) with the command to ‘make disciples of all the nations’ or ‘Gentiles.’ This explanation, however, breaks down in face of Acts 10:45-48, the opening of the door to the Gentiles
…In any case, it would be exceedingly strange that at this point (Luke) should not have referred to the threefold formula, had it been in use, instead of simply saying, ‘When they heard it, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ‘ (Acts 19:5).
The threefold formula is attested by the Didache (chap. 7), both in express words and by the mention of the alternative practice of triple effusion; but, as the Didache shows elsewhere its dependence on Matthew, this is not independent evidence.
Justin Martyr (chap. 153), in describing baptism to heathen readers, gives the full formula in a paraphrastic form (Apol 16x) ‘in the name of God, Father of the Universe and Ruler, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Such a paraphrase was necessary to make the meaning clear to those for whom he wrote.
We find the full formula again in Tertullian some forty years later (De Bapt. 13, Adv. Prax. 26); and when the First Gospel was widely known it was certain to prevail. Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the Apostolic Canons (n. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of Can. Apost. 50 runs –’If any bishop or presbyter fulfil not three baptisms of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.’ This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 524), ‘for they baptize not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ’ (for other references see Usener, Relig. Uiztersuch., 1889, 1184); they, accordingly, used single immersion only.
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
Ritual immersion has traditionally played an important part in Judaism, as a symbol of purification (in the mikvah, a postmenstrual or ritual bath used by women) or as a symbol of consecration (in rituals of conversion, accompanied by special prayers). It was particularly significant in the rites of the Essenes. According to the Gospels, John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Although there is no actual account of the institution of baptism by Jesus, the Gospel According to Matthew portrays the risen Christ issuing the “Great Commission” to his followers: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20). Elsewhere in the New Testament, however, this formula is not used. Some scholars thus doubt the accuracy of the quotation in Matthew and suggest that it reflects a tradition formed by a merging of the idea of spiritual baptism (as in Acts 1:5), early baptismal rites (as in Acts 8:16), and reports of Pentecostalism after such rites (as in Acts 19:5–6).
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, August 31). baptism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/baptism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
…There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts, xix) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts, x, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ “. Those who were converted by Philip (Acts, viii) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ “, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins” (Acts, ii). Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts, xix) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them. The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only. St. Cj^irian says (Ep. ad Jubaian.) that this pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen’s words as to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost”. A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works of St. Ambrose (Lib. I, De Sp. S., iii), where he declares that if a person names one of the Trinity, he names all of them: ‘If you say Christ, you have designated God the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and Him Who was anointed Son, and the Holy Ghost in whom He was anointed.” This passage has been generally interpreted as referring to the faith of the catechumen, but not to the baptismal form. More difficult is the explanation of the response of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgarians (cap. civ; Labbe, VIII), in which he states that a person is not to be rebaptized who has already been baptized “in the name of the Holy Trinity or in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (for it is one and the same thing, as St. Ambrose has explained)”. As in the passage to which the pope alludes, St. Ambrose was speaking of the faith of the recipient of baptism, as we have already stated, it has been held probable that this is also the meaning that Pope Nicholas intended his words to convey (see another explanation in Pesch, Praelect. Dogm, VI, no. 389).
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 22, Pg 477
TRINITY, Doctrine of the
A doctrine of theology which declares that there are three persons in the Godhead, or divine nature—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—and that “these three are one true eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory—although distinguished by their personal properties. The most elaborate statement of the doctrine is to be found in the Athanasian Creed, which asserts that “the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity—neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance—for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal; the majesty coeternal.”
The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. In the New Testament the elements out of which it has been constructed are sought in the Trinitarian formula of baptism, the general character of the claims and prerogatives of Jesus Christ by which his deity is established, and in the functions attributed to the Holy Spirit. It is generally conceded, however, that the Christians of the second and even of the third century were content for the most part to use scriptural expressions in speaking of the Father and the Son and the Spirit, without defining articulately their relation to one another. The term Trinitas was first used by Tertullian, but the concept took form only in the debates of christology (q.v.). It was not until the progress of opposing parties sought, on the one hand, to degrade the divine dignity of Christ (Ebionitism in its various forms and Arianism), or, on the other hand, to confound the personality of Christ with God the Father (see Monarchians ), that the Church was led to define in the Nicene Creed the relation of the Son to the Father, and further, in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the relation of the Spirit to the Father. This creed (see Nicene Creed; Filioque) was specially directed against the opinions of Arius (q.v.). There was never much discussion regarding the place and nature of the Spirit. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination. The only exception in modern times to the reception of the doctrine is in the case of the Socinians or Unitarians (see Socinus), who occupy in their teaching very much the position of the ancient Humanitarians (Ebionites).
Other References
- HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION Vol 2, Pg 377, 378, 389
- ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS (1951), II, 384, 389
- INTERPRETERS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE (1962) I, 351
- A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Otto Heick) (1965), I, 53
- HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE (1898), I, 241
- A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Williston Walker, (1947), Pg 58
- THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE (1957), I, 435