The following is taken from: Matthew 28:19: A Text Critical Investigation – TorahResource.

by Tim Hegg

In some recent Christological discussions, the tripartite designation included in the standard texts of Matthew 28:19 has often been suspect. The problem is that it sounds far too trinitarian to have been included in Matthew’s original words. As a result, a few modern scholars have suggested that the ending of Matthew’s gospel might well have been added by later scribes under the influence of the trinitarian controversies that embroiled the Christian Church in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. The primary evidence upon which such suggestions rest is the quote or allusion to this text in the writings of Eusebius. As an example, we may note his words in Ecclesiastical History, Book III.5.ii:

For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. 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 Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

On the basis of this Eusebian quote as well as the apparent “baptismal formula” of Acts and the Epistles, some commentators have suggested that the tripartate phrase of v. 19 was a liturgical interpolation or expansion on the original words of our Master, which enjoined baptism “in My name” rather than in the “name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Hagner explains:

The threefold name (at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf Didymus 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read “make disciples in my name” (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation.¹

But even Hagner does not deny that the tripartite designation is original to Matthew’s Gospel, only that Matthew may have himself expanded the words of Yeshua:

In contrast to John’s baptism, this baptism brings a person into an existence that is fundamentally determined by, ie, ruled by, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (εἰς τό έμόν ὂνομα, “in my name,” in 18:20).²

We should be careful not to be persuaded by deceptive pseudo-scholarship often found in our day. For instance, Willis³ extracts a quote from R. V. G. Tasker’s commentary on Matthew⁴ making it appear as though the author of this exposition agrees that the tripartite phrase is not original in Matthew’s Gospel. Willis writes:

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:

It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.

But this is a deceptive quote because it represents the description of what others believe, not what the author himself holds. Here is the actual quote with its context:

Secondly, it is often affirmed, that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [the words themselves] of Jesus, but either the evangelist’s words put into His mouth, or a later liturgical addition. It is argued that on the lips of Jesus they are an anachronism; that the early Church did not in fact use them as a baptismal formula till the second century; and that Eusebius of Caesarea in quoting this passage often omits or varies these words. On the other hand, the words are found in all extant Mss; and it is difficult to see why the evangelist should have inserted them if at the time when he was writing they formed no part of the Church’s liturgy. It is also difficult to suppose that, if Eusebius had really known of Mss which omitted these words, some trace of the influence of these Mss would not have survived in the textual tradition. Furthermore, it may well be that the true explanation why the early Church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name, is that the words of xxviii.19 were not originally meant by our Lord as a baptismal formula. He was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.⁵

Willis also quotes from Hastings Dictionary of the Bible in order to provide proof that scholars generally regard the tripartite phrase of Matthew 28:19 to be a late Catholic addition. However, if one consults the article itself,⁶ one discovers that the quote given is extracted from a list of four general hypotheses offered by scholars regarding the tripartite phrase, a hypothesis which the author of the article (Alfred Plummer) rejects! Willis also offers the following quote from ISBE, mistakenly said to be from the article on “Baptism” when it is, in fact, extracted from the article on “Sacraments.”

Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.⁷

Here is the quote in its fuller context:

(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16:15 f occurs in a passage (16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus” (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:38,41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Rom 6:3 ff; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle’s earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.⁸ (emphasis mine)

Willis’ deception in misquoting sources in order to make them say precisely the opposite of what the authors intended is nothing short of reprehensible,⁹ but unfortunately it represents the misinformation all too often encountered on the internet.¹⁰

This is not to negate the fact that some modern scholars do consider the tripartite phrase of Matthew 28:19 to be a “later interpolation.” For instance, Bultmann writes:

The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of “the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded to the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (first attested in Did. 7:1, 3, Justin Apol. 61:3, 11, 13; also found in Mt. 28:19, but this is perhaps a case of later interpolation).¹¹

Others have followed him in suggesting that the tripartite phrase was added to the explicit words (ipsissima verba) of Yeshua. But we should be careful not to confuse the viewpoint that the tripartite phrase is a “later interpolation” with the idea that the phrase was not original in Matthew’s Gospel but was added in the later centuries. Some of those who consider the possibility of a “later interpolation” mean that Matthew himself interpolated the words of Yeshua, and that the tripartite phrase is original to the Gospel. Likewise, what has caused many to suspect the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19 is that they are considering it a “baptismal formula,” that is, the prescribed liturgical words required to be said at a baptism. When our text is considered as a baptismal formula, it stands against the consistently used baptismal formula found in Acts and the Epistles, which is that one is baptized “in(to) the name of Yeshua” or “in(to) Yeshua Messiah” or some near equivalent (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3). But there is no clear reason to presume that Matthew is giving us a “baptismal formula.” Note the remarks of Carson:

Many deny the authenticity of this Trinitarian formula, however, not on the basis of doubtful reconstructions of the development of doctrine, but on the basis of the fact that the only evidence we have of actual Christian baptisms indicates a consistent monadic formula baptism in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; similarly, passages such as Rom 6:3). If Jesus gave the Trinitarian formula, why was it shortened? Is it not easier to believe that the Trinitarian formula was a relatively late development? But certain reflections give us pause.

1. It is possible, though historically improbable, that the full Trinitarian formula was used for pagan converts, and “in the name of Jesus” for Jews and proselytes. But this is doubtful, not least because Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, never uses a Trinitarian formula for baptism.

2. Trinitarian ideas are found in the resurrection accounts of both Luke and John even if these evangelists do not report the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The faith to be proclaimed was in some sense Trinitarian from the beginning. “This conclusion should not come as a great surprise: the Trinitarian tendencies of the early church are most easily explained if they go back to Jesus Himself; but the importance of the point for our study is that it means that Matthew’s reference to the Trinity in chapter 28 is not a white elephant thoroughly out of context” (D. Wenham, “Resurrection,” p. 53).

3. The term “formula” is tripping us up. There is no evidence we have Jesus’ ipsissima verba here and still less that the church regarded Jesus’ command as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of which was a breach of canon law. The problem has too often been cast in anachronistic terms. E. Riggenbach (Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl Matt. 28:19  [Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1901]) points out that as late as the Didache, baptism in the name of Jesus and baptism in the name of the Trinity coexist side by side: the church was not bound by precise “formulas” and felt no embarrassment at a multiplicity of them, precisely because Jesus’ instruction, which may not have been in these precise words, was not regarded as a binding formula.¹²

It is not uncommon to hear the notion that the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19 is suspect on text critical grounds, but when one consults the data itself, such claims are entirely unfounded. Every extant Greek biblical manuscript that contains this verse of Matthew has the tripartite phrase.¹³ One would expect that if, indeed, Matthew’s original (whether one presumes a Greek or Hebrew original, or both) did not include the tripartite phrase, that at least some early witnesses to this original would have remained. But not one single witness, early or late, gives evidence that 28:19 ever existed without the tripartite phrase. When we look at the versions the same situation obtains. The Syriac Peshitta (in all of its extant witnesses), the Vulgate, the Coptic, the Slovak versions—all have the tripartite phrase. Plummer’s conclusion is therefore warranted:

It is incredible that an interpolation of this character can have been made in the text of Mt. without leaving a trace of its unauthenticity in a single MS. or Version. The evidence for its genuineness is overwhelming.¹⁴

Some, like George Howard,¹⁵ seek to use the text of the Shem Tov (Even Bohan) Matthew to suggest that the original text of Matthew did not contain the tripartite phrase. Matthew 28:19 reads as follows in the Shem Tov Matthew:

לכו אתם ושמרו [ולמדו] אותם לקיים כל הדברים אשר ציויתי אתכם עד עולם, “You go and guard [teach] them to establish all the words which I commanded you forever.”

Howard suggests the possibility that this shorter ending of Matthew’s Gospel may reflect a text which Eusebius also had. In the course of the article, Howard refers to a well known article by F. C. Conybeare (“The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19” ZNW 2 [1901], 275–88) which purports to give evidence for the later addition of the tripartite phrase.¹⁶ He also references a logion accredited to Yeshua in a medieval Muslim text¹⁷ which some thought paralleled a short ending for Matthew. David Flusser also felt this might be the case.¹⁸However, a number of scholars responded quite negatively to these claims, offering substantial evidence to the contrary.¹⁹Given the large textual discrepancies between the Shem Tov Matthew and all other known manuscripts of the Gospel, and while we may applaud Howard’s efforts to show possible “ancient readings” embedded in the Shem Tov text, it hardly seems warranted to use this 14th Century source for text critical issues unless the variant readings it offers show some corroborative evidence from other manuscripts. Additionally, the other two Hebrew Matthews (du Tillet and Münster) both contain the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19.

This brings us to the one piece of evidence most often cited by those who contend that the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19 is a later addition motivated by trinitarian concerns of the later Christian Church: the quotes or allusions to this text in the writings of Eusebius. As noted above, Eusebius quotes or alludes to Matthew 28:19 with the words “make disciples of all the nations in My name.” This is found a number of times in his Ecclesiastical History,²⁰ but there is more that needs to be said. First, Eusebius did know of the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19. In his Letter to the Church of Cesarea we read his confession of faith in light of the Council of Nicea:

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.²¹ (emphasis mine)

Secondly, the times that Eusebius does quote or allude to Matthew 28:19 without reference to the tripartite phrase are in contexts where his primary object is to show the necessity of making disciples in general, quoting only that part of Matthew 28:19 that fits his immediate purpose. That he does include the tripartite phrase in the context of a confession shows that he was aware of its presence in Matthew’s text.

Thirdly, why are the quotes from Eusebius that leave off the tripartite phrase considered of greater weight than other Church Fathers who quote or allude to the text with the phrase? We may note the words of Justin (c. 100–165) in 1 Apol. 61.3:

they then perform the bath in the water, in the name of the Father of the universe and of our Savior Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit.

Though this is not a quote of the Matthew text, it certainly incorporates the same three names in the context of baptism. However, Ignatius (c. 35–107) clearly quotes our text in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, ix:

For those things which the prophets announced, saying, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles,” (Gen 49:10) have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying, ] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt 28:19) All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company [of others] that have believed through them: only if we love one another.

Irenaeus (c. 130–200) likewise quotes Matthew 28:19 with the tripartite phrase in his Against Heresies:

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.” (section xvii)

Note Tertullian (c. 160–225) as well:

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” (The Prescription Against Heretics, xx)

We should also reckon with the fact that the Didache contains the tripartite phrase:

1 Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in running water.  2 But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm.  3 But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times “in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Didache 7:1–3)

A number of Didache scholars do not believe it quotes Matthew at this point, but that both the Didache and Matthew rely upon a common tradition.²² Furthermore, while the date of the Didache is debated, most scholars would put it between 90 and 120 CE with some suggesting an even earlier date. It therefore exists as an early witness to the tripartite phrase in connection with baptism, just as we have it in Matthew 28:19.

Given these data, it seems strange that the references to our text by Eusebius, leaving out the tripartite phrase, are given so much attention, especially since Eusebius lived c. 260–340 CE, well after the witness to the text of Matthew 28:19 by the earlier Church Fathers noted above. Even if his Ecclesiastical History relied upon earlier sources, there is nothing directly to substantiate the notion that he had in his possession an early copy of Matthew’s Gospel that left off the tripartite formula. Further, the fact that Eusebius’ style of quoting sources has been characterized as often “inexact” should caution us in giving too much weight to his allusions or quotations of Matthew 28:19.

We may also inquire into the work of commentators on Matthew’s Gospel. Do the majority of modern commentators hold that the tripartite phrase of Matthew 28:19 is spurious to the Gospel itself and was added in the later centuries? It is not uncommon to hear that such is the case, but one is hard pressed to prove it. Besides the quotes given above from Tasker, Hagner, Carson, and Plummer, note the following excerpts from other well known commentaries on Matthew:

Christian baptism in Acts is also ‘in[to] the name of’, but it is always ‘in[to] the name of Jesus’ or some equivalent. In Paul, baptism is ‘into Christ [Jesus]’. Matthew’s ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ is quite distinctive. It is the Matthean use that predominated in later Christian baptismal practice. And this seems to have had a distorting effect on the understanding of Matthew’s words. We cannot know whether the Matthean church used the words formulaically in baptism or not. But given the variations in NT language, clearly there was no agreed baptismal formula. And I think it unlikely that Matthew is reflecting the language of baptismal practice. In any case, our first task must be to understand the language in its present Matthean context and not in some putative context in baptismal practice. A large number of scholars have pronounced Matthew’s language to be a foreign body in Matthew, but this judgment seems to be derived ultimately from reading the language in relation to a (later) baptismal context and not in relation to the Gospel. My concern is to seek to understand the Matthean language in the Matthean context.²³

---

Jesus goes on to speak of baptizing these new disciples “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This expression has caused endless controversy among exegetes. There are two separate problems, the institution of baptism as a rite of initiation for disciples, and the use of the Trinitarian formula. On the former question it is pointed out that Jesus did not habitually engage in baptism as John the Baptist, for example, did. Throughout his ministry he did not call on his followers to baptize those who wished to become adherents. From this it is argued that baptism was a rite established by the church, and the command to continue it is viewed as having been read back onto the lips of Jesus. But against this is the fact that baptism was part of church life from the very first. On the Day of Pentecost Peter preached to the crowd in Jerusalem, and when they asked, “What shall we do, brother men?” he responded without consultation and without hesitation, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:37–38). We have no knowledge of a time when the church was without baptism or unsure of baptism. It is difficult to explain this apart from a definite command of Jesus.  The words referring to the Trinity are another matter, but we must bear in mind that the faith mentioned in verse 18 “naturally issues in the concept of the Trinity” (Johnson). We must bear in mind as well that in the early church there are references to baptizing in the name of Jesus (e.g., Acts 8:16; 19:5). Bonnard notices this difficulty, but immediately adds, “one cannot doubt that the Trinitarian formula was already there in germ in Paul” (p. 416; similarly Allen remarks, “the conception Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly as ancient as the Christian Society itself”). Such passages, however, may not give the formula used in baptizing, but be a short way of differentiating Christian baptism from the other baptisms in the ancient world.²⁴

---

εἰς τὸ ὂνομα κ.τ.λ. can mean ‘in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Spirit’ (cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 61). The difficulty with this, however, it that one might then expect τἀ ὀνόματα. The alternative is to suppose that the one divine name—the revealed name of power (Exod 3.13–15; Prov 8.10; Jub. 36.7)—has been shared by the Father with Jesus and the Spirit, and there are early texts which speak of the Father giving his name to Jesus (Jn 17.11; Phil 2.9; Gos. Truth 38.5–15). But we are unaware of comparable texts regarding the Spirit.

We see no developed Trinitarianism in the First Gospel. But certainly later interpreters found in the baptismal formulation an implicit equality among Father, Son and Holy Spirit; so for instance Basil the Great, Hom. Spir. 10.24; 17.43²⁵

---

Father,…Son,…Holy Spirit. If we approach this verse with a fully developed post-Nicene orthodoxy in our minds, we shall be just as sympathetic to our sources as are those who find in this verse a highly sophisticated and much later stage of doctrinal formulation retrojected into the text. For all we know, such a saying may have stood in the now-lost ending of Mark. Even apart from such speculation, the concept of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly as old as the Messianic Community as it is known to us in the New Testament. Cf., for example, 1Cor 12:4–6; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2; 1Jn 3:23–24. In Mark we have “Father” and “Son” so obviously antithetical that—allowing for Jewish beliefs about “the Spirit”—it plainly opened the way to trinitarian belief. The antithesis Father-Son is found in Matt 26:27 and is very common in John. But what is also common in John is the emphasis on the Paraclete, clearly represented as being neither Father nor Son.

It seems plain from the early material in Acts that baptism was performed “in the name of” and also “into the name of” Jesus as Lord and Messiah. The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this saying as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description of what baptism accomplished. The evangelist, whom we must at least allow to have been familiar with the baptismal customs of the early Messianic Community, may well have added to baptizing them his own summary of what baptism accomplished.

It is as well to remember that the Didache also has this summary of baptism (Didache vii) and its reference to “running water” reflects an earlier Essene preoccupation.²⁶

To these may be added the comments of Rudolf Schnackenburg (The Gospel of Matthew), H. A. W. Meyer (Commentary on the New Testament, Willoughby Allen (original Matthew in the ICC), J. P. Lange (Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical Commentary on the New Testament), Adam Clarke (The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), J. B. Lightfoot (A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica), A. B. Bruce (Expositor’s Greek Testament), Henry Alford (The Greek Testament), all of whom affirm the tripartite phrase as original to Matthew’s Gospel. We may add to these commentators remarks in various works by other scholars: Eckhard Schnabel (Early Christian Mission), N. T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God), Jacob Van Bruggen (Jesus the Son of God), Kurt Niederwimmer (The Didache [Hermeneia]), James D. G. Dunn (Christology in the Making), Simon Gathercole (The Pre-existent Son),  and the list could go on.

The question, then, is how the tripartite phrase could be suspect as spurious in the first place? Since there is not one scrap of manuscript evidence to suggest any variants in regard to the phrase, nor do any of the early versions exclude it; since a number of the early Church Fathers quote the verse with the tripartite phrase; and since Eusebius, who does quote a shorter version, also quotes the full version with the phrase, we have no real reason to question its authenticity. It would appear that those who do question its authenticity do so on the grounds that (1) it represents a trinitarian baptismal formula which developed later, in the 2nd Century or beyond, and (2) the consistent baptismal formula in Acts does employ the name of Yeshua alone. But we have shown that there is no necessity to see a “baptismal formula” in Matthew 28:19, nor some kind of developed “trinitarianism,” notwithstanding that some have tried to read these later developments back into the text.

But this is not the heart of the issue. Assessments of whether a given text is authentic or not should be made on the extant manuscript evidence, not on one’s theological presumptions or propensities. Those who find themselves opposed to the later trinitarian doctrines formulated by the Christian Church may easily suspect Matthew 28:19 of saying something it actually does not. Reading the text with anti-trinitarian glasses hampers objectivity. As noted above, there is no reason to think that Matthew’s tripartite phrase flows from a developed trinitarianism. The juxtapositioning of titles such as “Father” or “God” with “Son” or “Yeshua/Messiah” and “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” is common in the Apostolic Scriptures. We may note the following by way of example:

1Cor. 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

2Cor. 13:14 The grace of the Lord Yeshua Messiah, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Eph. 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

2Th. 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.  14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Yeshua Messiah.

1Pet. 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Yeshua Messiah and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Furthermore, it seems highly probable that the Pauline texts quoted above were all written at a time roughly contemporary with (or perhaps even prior to) the writing of the Gospels. This being the case, we should not be overly concerned to find “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” in Matthew’s text, as though to do so requires some kind of explanation. Surely the philosophical and ontological trinitarian formulations appeared centuries later than the writing of Matthew’s Gospel, but the acknowledgment of the Father and Son relationship taught by Yeshua Himself, along with the present, active work of the Spirit, certainly was an early phenomenon among the disciples of our Master. Therefore, for Matthew to record the words of Yeshua that commissioned His disciples to baptize Gentile believers “into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” must, at the minimum, mean that such Gentile believes were to acknowledge their new relationship with the God of Israel, obtained through the coming of His Son as Messiah, and made real or powerful through the inner working of the Spirit. If we can read Matthew’s words without imposing upon them the christological debates of the later centuries, we can accept them at face value without having to find some supposed textual reason to dismiss them.

1. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol 33b in The Word Bible Commentary (Word, 1995), pp. 887–88.
2. Ibid., p. 888.
3. see http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm, accessed 12/25/06.
4. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew in Tasker, ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1961)
5. Ibid., p. 275.
6. James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible 4 vols (Scribners, 1905), 1.241–42.
7. Ibid.
8. J. C. Lambert, “Sacraments” in James Orr, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915).
9. A number of other similar deceptions are part of Willis’ internet page on Matt 28:19, but the few listed here should give the reader sufficient pause in relying upon anything this author presents.
10. One need only search the internet for “Matthew 28:19” to see the manner in which irresponsible misinformation and malicious deception has been multiplied upon unsuspecting readers. Such a state of affairs should strengthen our resolve to accept conclusions only when we have verified the sources.
11. Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament 2 vols (Scribners, 1951), 1.133–34.
12. D. A. Carson, “Matthew” in Frank Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 12 vols. (Zondervan, 1990), 8.598.
13. That such is the case may be seen by the fact that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford, 1993) does not mention anything about the textual corruption of Matt 28:19 for the obvious reason that no textual variants exist in the Greek manuscripts regarding the tripartite phrase. Since it is his purpose in this work to show that the christological debates of the later centuries introduced theologically driven variants to enter the text, had any such variants existed for Matthew 28:19, he doubtlessly would have included them.
14. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (James Family Reprint, n.d.), p. 432.
15. George Howard, “A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew.” HTR 81 (1988) 117–20. Also note his remarks to this effect in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Mercer, 1995), pp. 192–194.
16. This article, however, was amply refuted by E. Riggenbach (Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl Matt. 28:19 [Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1901]) who showed that the Didache used both a short and tripartite liturgical formula (cf. 7.1, 3; 9.3; 10.2).
17. Shlomo Pines, The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2/13 (Jerusalem: Central Press, 1966).
18. David Flusser, “The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish-Christian Source,” ASTI 5(1967), 110–20. 
19. See Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Op. cit., p. 193, n. 37. 
20. e.g., Ecc. Hist. III.5.ii; X.16.viii. Davies and Allison (Matthew in The International Critical Commentary, 3 vols [ T&T Clark, 1997], 3.684, n. 41) indicate that Eusebius’ allusions to or quotes of Matthew 28:19 in this fashion occur 16 times. However, B. J. Hubbard (The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning, SBLDS 19, [Missoula, 1974], pp. 151–75) shows Eusebius’ habit “of “quoting the NT inexactly and of combining or at least grouping in close proximity passages which relate in some way to each other.”
21. Document E in The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus (Baker Book House, 1955), Appendix on the Council of Nice, p. 43ff.
22. See Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache in Hermeneia (Fortress, 1998), pp. 126-27, and p. 126, n. 11; Willy Rordorf, “Baptism According to the Didache” in Jonathan A. Draper, ed., The Didache in Modern Research (Brill, 1996), pp. 217–18.
23. John Nolland, Matthew in Marshall and Hagner, eds., The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2005), p. 1268.
24. Leon Morris, Matthew in The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 1992), ad loc, Matthew 28:19.
25. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew 3 vols in The International Critical Commentary (T&T Clark, 1997), 3.685–86.
26. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew in Albright and Freedman, eds. The Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1971), pp. 362–63.

 

Courtesy of William Albrecht.

Jan Huss on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary

“..and in all these I sought rest, and I shall abide in the inheritance of the Lord.” Quoting Sirach 24

“Although the words of this epistle primarily relate to the uncreated Wisdom, they also secondarily relate to the glorious Virgin Mary.”

-In die Assumptionis B. Virginis early 1400s

Martin Luther

Today the festival of our dear lady, the mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above. There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith. It is enough to know that she lives in Christ. [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of 1522 Sermon on the Feast of the Assumption

Heinrich Bullinger

Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that . . . we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures. . . . It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up to heaven by the angels.

De Origine Erroris 1568

The Feast of the Assumption of Mary continues to be observed in Lutheran/Heavily Protestant Churches in the official Feast Days of these locations and years:

Weissenburg 1528

Dessau 1532

Nordlingen 1538

Brandenburg 1540

Palatinate-Neuberg 1543

Scwabisch Hall 1543

Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach 1548

Hohenlohe 1553

Nuremberg 1543

Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes

Jesus thought that destruction of the Sabbath observance by his Apostles was among the top items on his list to eliminate during his ministry to usher in the Kingdom of God. Jesus first exercises his loosing power over injustice or sin upon the allegedly non-workable Sabbath, and thereby shows he can loose the Sabbath itself by ordering a man healed from paralysis to carry his mattress (Luke 5:20-22). This power of “the Lord of the Sabbath” to heal and to loose on Saturdays is understood by Jews and Gospelers alike to be the power that belongs only to God as creator of the world (Luke 6:1-9). To understand the divine power needed for binding and loosing on the Sabbath, regarding work (the only regulation of Moses constituting the Sabbath observance obligatory for all Israelites), I now refer to important scholarship that has already been done on Jesus’s binding and loosing. I quote doctors Bivin and Blizzard, Jr., who write:

The Hebrew words for “bind” and “loose” each appear with more than one meaning in the New Testament. “Bind,” for instance, can mean “tie up.” (Judges 15:12, 16:11), “imprison” (2 Kings 17:4), “hitch” a cart, wagon, chariot (Genesis 46:29), or “tether an animal” (Genesis 49:11); and by the time of Jesus the word had acquired and additional meaning – “bind” in the sense of “forbid.” Similarly, “loose” had acquired the opposite meaning, “permit.” The last meanings of “bind” and “loose” are the one we meet most often in Rabbinic literature. The sages were constantly called upon by their community to interpret the Scriptural commands. Was such-and-such and action permitted? Was such-and-such a person or thing ritually clean? The Bible for example forbids work on Saturday. But it does not define “work.” As a result the sages were called upon to declare what an individual was and was not permitted to do on the Sabbath. They “bound” (prohibited) certain activities, and “loosed” (allowed) other activities.[1]

Jesus showed that he had this binding and loosing power and quite ostentatiously for Jewish tastes. For example, Jesus says:

“My Father works (ergazetai) even until now [viz. on the Sabbath], and I work [on the Sabbath].” So, for this reason, were the Jews seeking to kill him, because not only was he continuously loosing the Sabbath (elyen to sabbaton) but also was accustomed to call God his own Father, making himself equal to God. (John 5:18)[2]

This fascinating passage is especially relevant nowadays because some self-described Christians known as Adventists have claim that the Sabbath (established by God and Moses for purposes of not-working with Temple regulations) still allegedly binds Christians not to work and to do their worship services on Saturday. The synagogue or Scripture, preaching & hymn service of Jews was never part of the Pentateuch. It was not invented by Moses, nor spoken of by God in the Torah, and is not part of either the decalogue (second commandment), nor part of the 613 Jewish precepts of the law. “Going to church” on Saturday is a feature of Pharisees’ devotion, who are associated with the Rabbis in their later books like the Mishnah (interpreting how to apply the Pentateuch). This is not the case with Jewish priests, who are not even essential for a synagogue service to take place in the first century (See Leviticus 17-22). The Sadducees emphasized the priestly cult over non-Torah ceremonies, and we have no literature from Sadducees suggesting that they observed synagogue services as their duty in their observance of the law. We do have Pharisee and Essene literature, but they do not attest to any understanding of the Pentateuch prescribing Sunday Bible reading and hymns at a local assembly as somehow part of Mosaic precept. The only required worship on Sunday is Mosaic Temple worship, as even the anti-Temple Essene document attests from the Dead Sea Scrolls, forming the strictest known interpretation of the Torah:

Sabbath-keeping in worship (XI, 17b-18a)

The author/s of Damascus Document polemicizes against some of the wrong interpretations and hence practices of the current stewards of the Jerusalem Temple: “No man shall bring anything on the altar on the Sabbath, save the burnt-offering of the Sabbath, for so it is written, ‘Save your Sabbaths.’” Although the biblical quotation given here is not precise, it is clear that the author […] refers to the verses from Lev. 23:37-39. The passage is found in the middle of the section which deals with Succoth. Two interpretations were made with regards to this passage. First, the phrase “Save your Sabbaths/apart from your Sabbaths” refers to the sacrifices required on the Sabbath; and second, that the phrase under consideration refers to the Sabbath itself. The author of CD chooses the second interpretation. He declares that one must not offer festival sacrifices, including the sacrifices of intermediary festival days, on the Sabbath Day.[3]

Sabbath liturgy or Sabbath church service is a Second Temple practice and custom after the destruction of the Temple (well after the Pentateuch was prescribed), so that, summarily, God only orders the sabbath observance as strictly regarding rest/work and Temple sacrifice.

Yet, above, Jesus proves an iconoclast in the extreme against any such graven image of Sabbath observance. In fact, in the Jewish mind, Jesus’s claims to divine status depend on two claims: (1.) Whoever has power over the Lord’s Sabbath and (2.) whoever calls God his own Father is divine. For our purposes, Jesus will be shown to be at the forefront of an issue only understood fully since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Let us look at what Jesus is arguing with the Jews’ Sabbatine observers, with respect to their interpretation of God allegedly not working on the Sabbath. We go to the greatest of Old Testament experts, Emmanuel Tov:

[In scholarly studies of Jewish Scriptures] when textual variation is encountered, one of the readings is sometimes termed the “difficult” reading, and the other(s), the “easy” reading(s), with the implication that the former has a preferable (original) status. This rule is logical, as some “difficult” readings were indeed replaced by scribes with simpler ones. For example, in [Masoretic] Genesis 2:2: “On the seventh day (God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.).” In the Masoretic [text], Targum Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, [Greek] Symmachus, and the Vulgate is the more difficult reading (at the theological level) as opposed to “on the sixth day (God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done),” in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Jubilees 2:1[4]

Regarding the Masoretic or Hebrew text, Adventists prioritize the Hebrew or Masoretic Text. Yet, in the authoritative Hebrew for them, Jesus proves infuriating! Jesus is claiming that he support the Hebrew variant of the Bible, apparently known and debated in the first century as witnessed by Jesus in John 5:18, above, favoring Jesus’s claims to be God because Jesus claims the right to work on the seventh day, the Sabbath (God, too, in the Masoretic text did do some work on the Sabbath before he rested on that day!). If Jesus has the right to work on the Sabbath, then he is God and Lord of the Sabbath! The ability to loose the Sabbath itself is the ultimate sign of a divine being legislating for Jews and the very indication that Jesus is God, exactly as Jesus was accused of claiming for himself. In a similar instance, we again read: “So, some from among the Pharisees were saying: ‘This man is not from God, because he does not observe (têrei) the Sabbath’” (John 9:16). The irony is that Jesus is God because he has power to do Saturday-work like the Masoretic text says God does on the Sabbath.The idea of “guarding/observing/keeping” (têrei) a law or a command is terribly serious elsewhere for Jesus in John’s Gospel: “He who does not love Me does not keep (têrei) My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me” (John 14:21; “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept (etêrêsan) My word, they will keep (têrêsousin) yours also” (John 15:20). Clearly, if Jesus is not following the Sabbath, then it is because the Sabbath rest is not the Father’s word and not the Apostles’ words to observe or keep either!

Again, the so-called Adventist theory is clearly unsustainable, for Jesus rejects Sabbath observance (see also Matthew 12:1; Luke 6:1). He declares the destruction of the Temple and all Jewish customs related thereto: “for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will abolish (katalysei) this place and change the customs (ethê) which Moses traditioned to us” (Acts 6:14) [=Matthew 6:14-15].  More importantly, however, Jesus’s lack of observance points to the loosing of himself (and of his followers) from the Sabbath in order to do work, destroying the essence of the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day; completely nullifying the Sabbath, which was not obligatory insofar as synagogue services are concerned, but legally obligatory for ceasing from certain kinds of physical activity defined as work. A culminating example of a Jewish debate on the matter occurs as follows:

[The Jews asked] “Who is seeking to kill you?” Jesus answered and said to them: “One work did I do and you all marvel.[5] For this reason, Moses gave to you circumcision –not that it is from Moses but from the Patriarchs– and you circumcise a man on a Sabbath. If a man receives circumcisions on a Sabbath so that Mosaic law was not loosed (elythêi), why do you rage at me that I made a whole man healthy on a Sabbath? Don’t judge by sight but judge the judgment that is just.” (John 7:19-24)

Now it should be entirely clear how loosing can work. Moses saw cutting a man on the Sabbath as compatible with the Sabbath and, therefore, his act of cutting does not abrogate or grant even an exception from the meaning of the Sabbath in the mind of his hearers. Moses’s action, in context, is both physically hurting and simultaneously saving a man. Jesus is doing something even less risky, even though things like chopping wood and cutting food are unlawful among the Jews. The principle of Jesus destroying the Sabbath was already part of the implicit legislation by Moses who foresaw it coming to an end when doing saving good and ushering in the Kingdom of God. But how in the world does this rule, considering Moses, even apply to Jesus’s mixing mud and spittle to heal the whole body versus to cut a piece of flesh from the body? In answer: any saving, righteous, or just judgment leading to actions otherwise considered work is permissible (playing on the meaning of justice to be salvation –and here that means the body of a man is saved).

We can verify the fact that no other worship other than Temple worship is associated with the Sabbath in Jesus’s day. The strength of Jesus’s legal argumentation in John 7:19-24 is verified too from the Jewish Damascus Document of a strict observance community of Qumran (probably Essenes), who legislated thus during the period just before Jesus’s ministry:

            Sabbath-keeping in saving human life (XI, 16-17a)

[…]  The modern reader is at first left in doubt whether the Qumran community was valuing human life above the Sabbath or vice versa.  Until Lutz Döering’s research, there were only three major views: 1) Life-saving is prohibited with utensils on the Sabbath, 2) Life-saving is permitted with utensils on the Sabbath, 3) The laws of the Sabbath are overruled in order to save a human life (piqquuah nefesh), as Schiffman argued. However, Döering suggested another possible view which is strongly supported by 4Q265, a […] fragment from cave 4 of the DSS (4Q265 7i 6-7 reads, “But if it is a man who has fallen into the water on the Sabbath day, his garment should be thrown to him to lift him out with it. No-one should carry a vessel (…) Sabbath.”) In this view the Qumran community sought to balance the saving of life with the Sabbath regulations. Rightly or wrongly it has sought to combine in its halakhic outworking the readings that were equally pro-human and pro-Sabbath. In this way these texts indicate that Jesus’ discussions with the Pharisees (as mentioned earlier) are not unique, but represent an ongoing inter-Jewish discussion of Torah-observance that would be acceptable to Israel’s God.[6]

So, now we can see how well Jesus is confronting the binding and loosing culture of his day, as just quoted above. Later, it will be only Jewish-Rabbinic law experts, as reported by the Jewish Mishnah (post-dating Jesus by around couple centuries), who forbade or “bound” things like teaching one’s children Greek (during Jewish independence) and using festival clothing in the context of marriages.[7] Conversely, the permitting or “loosing” of marriages might involve things like wearing more solemn clothing when the experts on the law decided that a period of austerity or mourning no longer required it.[8] Other interesting applications are: If a person is “bound” to a vow to refrain from milk, he is automatically “loosed” from any abstention from whey. Or, another very important authoritative decision for Jews, is recorded as pertaining to oral attestation:

If a man sold produce in Syria and said, “It is from the land of Israel,” tithes must be paid on it. If he said: “It is already tithed,” he may be already believed since the mouth that forbade [literally “bound”] is the mouth that permitted (literally “loosed”).[9]

If an authoritative mouth has the power to bind, then the same authoritative mouth is also given the power to loose. This is important, for Jesus is then simply speaking in a Jewish way by loosing any obligation of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was destroyed by Jesus preventing observation of it by the Apostles during his three-year ministry. The Apostles and Paul’s presence at Temple worship was not every Saturday until its destruction and their presence at synagogue services was never recorded as observance of the Mosaic law since the essence of the Sabbath is to be faithful to God’s example of rest on the Sabbath whereupon no mere human has the power to work on his own authority on the Sabbath. But, as Jesus underlines: God the Father at creation (in the Hebrew) actually did himself work on the Sabbath and only later rested, and so Jesus demonstrates his claim to be God by having the same work schedule! So, when Jesus gives permission and orders for the Apostles likewise to work and to do good on the Sabbath, he thus orders them to imitate him as God and to destroy Sabbath observance, still observing the deeper Mosaic principle of saving life, which is at its root of Moses’s law and is the basis for the New Law meant to usher in the new age. A new dignity is given to the Apostles, returning them to the patriarchal friendship with God prior to Moses and no longer binding them into the slavery of the Mosaic covenant that was a punishment for disobedience on Sinai as Paul remarks in Galatians.

---

[1] Bivin and Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words: New Insights from a Hebraic Perspective, 2^nd ed.(Dayton OH, Center for Judai-Christian Studies, 2001), 105.

[2] Here the Greek of Genesis 2:2 is “work/s” (ergon, erga). This at least supports the possibility of an oblique reference to the passage.

[3] See: https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/sabbath-keeping-in-qumran/.

[4] Manuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 3^rd ed. (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns 2015), 275.

[5] The use of “work” (ergon) and “I did” (epoiêsa) makes this a probable reference to LXX Genesis 2:2.

[6] See: https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/sabbath-keeping-in-qumran/.

[7] Bivin and Blizzard, Ancient Israel, 106.

[8] Bivin and Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words, 106.

[9] Demai 6:11, as translated by Bivin and Blizzard, Jr., Understanding the Difficult Words, 107.

Or

The Gnostic System in Dr. White’s Neo-Platonism:

An Ignorant Son Who is Third after the Father

Who Participates in the One Who is First: Divine Being

Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes

TurretinFan, an uncontestably loyal friend and defender of Dr. James White, has to his credit of friendship provided a rather extensive (about two-hour) apologia or defense of his fellow Alpha & Omega apologist from Arianism.[1] Most of his two-hour commentary will be unaddressed here since very little has to do with substance of the controversy: (1.) Dr. James White’s assertion and (so far) refusal to deny that it is heretical to assert the Father, Son, and Spirit “participate in divine being”; (2.) His newly highlighted affirmation, below, is astounding that the “Son as Son” is ignorant in his temporal life on earth about something that the Father alone knows to the exclusion of the Son qua Son. The substance of the TurretinFan’s defense of Dr. White is as follows:

1. As Dr. White has not renounced his affirmation of Trinitarian participation in divine being to Turretinfan according to his YouTube video, TurritinFan provides his own double-pronged defense: a. Dr. White can use participation acceptably because he doesn’t mean it in a partial way but in some other way that is orthodox and my accusation is a red herring. b. Even if Dr. White might have slipped up, it’s no big deal. Everybody makes mistakes (which is not Dr. White’s own assertion) is TurretinFan’s alternative defense, if a. were found to be wanting.
2. According to TurretinFan, Dr. White only presented what “critics” or exegetes argue but Dr. White doesn’t himself embrace “the consistency argument,” rather only the bad critics argue (not supposedly Dr. White) that “monos (only)” (Matthew 24:36) and “monos (only)” (John 17:3) must be consistently read to exclude anyone else, so that the Father exclusively knows the Last Day (but not the Son) and that there is God only or exclusively (and therefore no other legitimate gods in existence)

What TurritinFan accidentally emphasized in his elongated commentary on YouTube accidently proves the opposite and has, so far, been otherwise missed by commentators, where Dr. White doubles down that he agrees with the critics or unnamed exegetes: At 1:24.00, where Dr. White critiques upholders of a Chalcedonian reading of Scripture thus:

^{[Dr. White:]} What we are being told is, um, … “^{[The Chalcedonian Christian:]} Well… when it says: ‘Nor the son,’ ^{(Mark 13:23)} you have to take the fully developed later definitions of Christology ^{[namely, Chalcedon (AD 451) & Constantinople III (AD 680)]}, read them back in here, and do “partitive exegesis” and, so, and that’s the easy way to do, the easy out to Mt 24:36 ^{[namely, the “Father only” knows]} is to say: “Well that’s the humanity,” um, “and not the deity.” That’s the easy way out and that’s normally how people try to respond to the critics and the critics go: “Can you show me that from the text?” Especially since it says:^{[NKJV Matthew 24:36]}But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only (oudeis oiden, oude huios, ei mê ho patêr monos).

But the “Father only” but you are saying: “It’s not the Father only, it’s the Father and the Son and the Spirit,” right? That’s what you are saying. So, you don’t believe “the monos [only]” part and there are people on the other side that are sharp enough to catch you on that because you are gonna have to use of “monos” ^{[viz., “only”]} in John chapter 17; it’s this consistency thing; I know it’s a bit of pain but it’s this consistency thing. So, if you want to say in order to protect my formulations, um, I’m gonna go beyond what the text say and I’m gonna say this is speaking on the son in his human incarnation and I’m gonna just ignore the use of the term monos.[2]

Turretinfan accuses us of being less than thorough, since a longer part of Dr. White’s original clip in context necessarily justifies Dr. White as allegedly and merely presenting other exegetes’ false positions but not adjudicating them on the show. Strangely, asserts TurretinFan, Dr. White describes an anti-Christian error but provides his listeners with no way out of the error on a show dedicated to apologetics…a strange apologist indeed! But, taking Turretinfan’s advice, let’s use the extra minutes that Turretinfan wants us to additionally hear (viz., read) in order to correctly understand Dr. White in context:

And, so, I simply go look the Son speaking as the Son at this point in his incarnational experience makes this statement. Don’t try to…Matthew is not trying address the stuff you’re trying to address Matthew is not trying to say the things that you are trying to make me say that you’re accusing me of errors in Christology for. You’re going beyond the text. You’re reading it, reading stuff into it that ain’t anywhere near, you couldn’t exegete that if your life depended on it. But you’ve got your external systematic theology and it tells you the text says and since I have dealt with Roman Catholics who left the Reformed faith and have taken them to texts that are clear and perspicuous on the peace of God that comes from justification. And their response has been “But that’s not what it means because…” and then they bring in the external authority. Maybe you don’t do that kind of stuff, I don’t know. But I just simply can’t contradict myself. I can’t be that inconsistent. And, so, I just go that’s what the text says. It’s not making these applications. You are pushing it too far to go there. And there is a day when we all went: “Yeah it’s a tough text.” Now, not a tough text at all. But is that because of exegesis or because of the adoption of an external authority. There you go.[3]

Dr. White is clearer, but not to TurretinFan’s liking: Dr. White doesn’t say “The Son speaking as the Son of man” (as I have shown from Mark, the greater context of Matthew, and from Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2 using a Chalcedonian approach), but rather Dr. White claims it is restrictively the “Son speaking as Son” or “Son qua Son”! Of course, “the Son” refers here to the person or hypostasis and not to the human nature that is not a separate human person (viz., Nestorianism).

Furthermore, according to Dr. White’s consistency argument, the monos (only) of John 17:3 must have the same meaning as monos (only) in Matthew 24:36: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only (monos) the Father.” This means of course that the Son, to be consistent with John on terminology (per Dr. White), means the Son-Logos. So, it is clear, from Dr. White’s argument that the Son-Word or Son-Logos qua Logos, or qua Son, or Son speaking as Son knows not the day nor the hour. After all, for Dr. White, it’s a consistent reading of John’s Gospel back into Matthew.

Let me illustrate from John: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Was the incarnate Jesus sent from heaven (as Apollinaris might assert) having flesh before he was in his mother’s womb? No, it was the Son or Word (of John 1) without flesh who was sent from heaven. To be consistent, there is for Dr. White the Son-Logos of John’s Gospel who is the Son in Matthew 24:36, which means that the “Son speaking as Son” (not as Son of Man) is ignorant. The Son, the person second in order after the Father, sent from heaven, is putatively ignorant. Let us combine this with Dr. White’s theological apology for himself below:

[Christ] is not merely some secondary created creature no matter how exalted. All “the pleroma,” the fullness, of that which makes God, God, “is dwelling in him in bodily form.” He is the creator, he took on human flesh, he is not abandoned that flesh, he is not ceased being the God-man. Now, I wasn’t going to mention this but I would just point out … that just seems honestly to cause some serious problems for people who try to force Aristotle’s Categories on the Christian God and it would seem to cause some problems for people who are today just obliterating the clear distinctions between [sic] Father Son and Spirit; not as to their deity, not as to the fact as each is described as Yahweh, their full participation in the divine being, but the fact that the Bible differentiates between.[4]

The Bible should be the sole rule of faith, at least that is what we are told by Dr. White. But when we point out that participation is a human characteristic in the Bible, not something that is divine; that it is something a creature does, not a creator, TurretinFan seems to scoff at us in favor of Dr. White. I cited Scripture: the Bible alone expert like Dr. White surely knows that (NIV) 2 Peter 1:4 states: “Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” I analyzed the Greek in previous articles. It is to humans alone that Bible-theology attributes participation, not to Father, not to Son, nor to Spirit. TurretinFan does not claim his friend Dr. James White repudiates this assertion in a program designed to defend himself against heresy and therefore meant to be technical and orthodox. Instead, what is TurretinFan’s defense of Dr. White and Alpha and Omega’s theological stance by its two biggest apologists? First TurretinFan simply asserts that “participation” doesn’t mean for White “partial.” I’d like to know in what English or Greek Bible that’s true? More importantly, I’d like to see what dictionaries assert that this is not the Biblical or the plain English or Greek reading. For example, look at dictionary.com:

participation

^{[ pahr-tis-uh–pey-shuhn ]}SHOW IPA

See synonyms for participation on Thesaurus.com🍎 Elementary Level

---

noun

an act or instance of participating.

the fact of taking part, as in some action or attempt:participation in a celebration.

a sharing, as in benefits or profits:participation in a pension plan.

adjective

of or relating to a venture characterized by more than one person, bank, or company participating in risk or profit:a participation loan.

Somehow, asserts TurretinFan, Dr. White doesn’t mean “partial” when saying “participation” in his theology, although the only biblical meaning and the dictionary meaning signifies only a partial sharing or sharing in someone else’s stuff. Here, for Dr. White, God is first and primary being, and secondly there is the participating Father, and thirdly in order is the Word or Son (not to mention the fourth being the Spirit). TurretinFan wants his listeners to believe that even if this “participation in divine being” were ever to prove to be heresy, well…we all make mistakes…no biggy. In other words, the most fundamental idea and biblical view of God (Trinity), in the very heated and apologetic defense of his own Trinitarian orthodoxy against accusations of Arianism is no big deal; we all make mistakes. But, by no means, or never, put too much stock in Nicene and Chalcedonian formulations…for Dr. White’s reading of Scripture is far superior to others’ reading of the same. The contention here is not that Dr. White is a maniacal Arian but rather that he’s so mixed up on terms and theological meanings (let alone plain English) that he is in no position to dictate Trinitarian and Christological formulas to students and believers alike. Dr. White, I advise, ought to defer, instead, to theologians like Calvin and Turretin and simply plagiarize them, not going beyond these learned humans, since they are trained in enough disciplines not to make these basic errors while attempting to defend their own orthodoxy. 

On a last note, Dr. White has traditionally advertised himself as an approving reader of St. Irenaeus and Dr. White has naturally, too, then railed against Gnosticism, which is condemned by St. Irenaeus. However, a consistent application of Dr. White’s self-defense of his own Christology by using his own self-apologetics (his apologetics programs) puts Dr. White in a very unfortunate state, where, after naming the divine being, he names the participating-Father in this divine being secondly, and thirdly the Son in his theology as someone participating in “divine being,” while “the Son speaking as the Son” is ignorant of the Last Day. This confused attempt to defend his own beliefs by asserting novel theological positions puts Dr. White precisely overlapping the Gnostic positions condemned by Irenaeus:

It cannot therefore longer be held, as these [Gnostic] men teach, that Logos, as occupying the third place in generation, was ignorant of the Father. Such a thing might indeed perhaps be deemed probable in the case of the generation of human beings, inasmuch as these frequently know nothing of their parents; but it is altogether impossible in the case of the Logos of the Father. For if, existing in the Father, he knows Him in whom he exists — that is, is not ignorant of himself — then those productions which issue from him being his powers (faculties), and always present with him, will not be ignorant of him who emitted them, any more than rays [may be supposed to be] of the sun. It is impossible, therefore, that the Sophia (wisdom) of God, she who is within the Pleroma, inasmuch as she has been produced in such a manner, should have fallen under the influence of passion, and conceived such ignorance. But it is possible that that Sophia (wisdom) who pertains to [the scheme] of Valentinus, inasmuch as she is a production of the devil, should fall into every kind of passion, and exhibit the profoundest ignorance. For when they themselves bear testimony concerning their mother, to the effect that she was the offspring of an erring Æon, we need no longer search for a reason why the sons of such a mother should be ever swimming in the depths of ignorance.[5]

For Gnostics and Fr. Dr. White (like TurretinFan’s defense) Dr. White means that the Father, Son, and Spirit participate in a divine being (no big deal since he means it [non-biblically] in a way that is beyond dictionaries and new testaments), so that the first divine reality is divine being, second the Father (as participant thereof), and third the Word, who is ignorant of something the Father knows. Dr. White has unknowingly embraced this aspect of the Gnostic thinking about the divinity. Perhaps, TurretinFan is right, Dr. White is not an Arian, for he embraces something far older than Arius, and Irenaeus knew exactly the teacher of such self-described Christians as following Valentinus who embraced these two concepts aligned with Dr. White’s own Trinitarian theology. In fact, by asserting these truths, Dr. White has embraced one of his least favorite categories: Christian Platonism, for Gnostics were, indeed, an unorthodox group of self-described Christians who were Platonic on just such a kind of participation. Perhaps Alpha and Omega should reconsider its opposition to the Christian Platonists among Evangelicals in light of Dr. White’s systematic exposition of the participating Trinity and the ignorant Son.

FURTHER READING

“Nor the Son [knows the last day], but the Father only”

Hocus Pocus and a Very Arian Happy Halloween

---

[1] Turritinfan, “James White, and False Accusations of Arianism” (21 October 2022): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E6K7FfSAqQ.

[2] Dr. James White, “Ninety Minutes of Biblical Exegesis and Theological Ruminations” (25 August 2022): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B9Rlh5tqFw.

[3] Dr. James White, “Ninety Minutes of Biblical Exegesis and Theological Ruminations” (25 August 2022): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B9Rlh5tqFw.

[4] Dr. James White, “On the Road Trip with James” (no. 4): https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/road-trip/on-the-road-trip-with-james-4/.

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, bk II, 17.8: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103217.htm.