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 (Mt 28:19).
Some scholars doubt or deny that Jesus actually said this. The purpose of my post is not to convince readers people who think Matthew is pious fiction. I'm not aiming at readers who think Matthew is largely legendary or hagiographical. My more modest point is that there's nothing surprising about Jesus saying this.
i) One side issue is whether this is a baptismal formula in the sense of a liturgical formula recited at baptism. That may not be what it originally meant. Rather, it may indicate the nature of baptism. Of course, it came to be the standard baptismal formula in ecclesiastical practice, and I don't have a problem with that development.
ii) In the OT, it's not unusual for Yahweh and the Spirit of Yahweh to be paired.
iii) "In the name of Yahweh" is a stock formula in OT usage.
iv) In Matthew, the Father, Son, and Spirit are often mentioned separately. In addition, "God" and "Father" are often used interchangeably, as synonyms, where "God" functions as a proper name for the Father.
v) The Father, Son, and Spirit are the major players in Matthew. They are above the angels. They occupy a unique echelon, on the divine side.
vi) The use of the singular is striking: one name for three named individuals. And what would the one name be? Presumably the divine name. The name of God. All three can be subsumed under the one name of the one God.
vi) Not only are the Father, Son, and Spirit mentioned separately in Matthew, on multiple occasions, but collectively in 3:16-17.
vii) Moreover, I doubt it's coincidental that the two occasions in Matthew where they are collectively mentioned is in a baptismal context: the baptism of Christ and the baptism of Christians.
16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:16-17).
viii) Likewise, this is the first time since that occasion that baptism is mentioned. So I think there's an intentional parallel between the baptism of Christ and the baptismal formula in 28:19. In both cases you have a baptism setting with "Trinitarian" players. The baptism of Christ is the template for Christian baptism.
ix) Finally, it's not unexpected that Matthew would conclude his Gospel in a climatic note. Good writers, including good historians, like to finish strong. Mt 28:19 seems to be an allusive summary of 3:16-17, only 28:19 is repeatable and forward-leaning.
F.F. Bruce wrote in chapter 4 of his classic book, "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" regarding the Gospel of Matthew:
ReplyDeleteQUOTE: The sayings of Jesus are arranged so as to form five great discourses, dealing respectively with (a) the law of the kingdom of God (chapters v to vii), (b) the preaching of the kingdom (x. 5-42), (c) the growth of the kingdom (xiii. 3-52), (d) the fellowship of the kingdom (chapter xviii), and (e) the consummation of the kingdom (chapter xxivxxv). The narrative of the ministry of Jesus is so arranged that each section leads on naturally to the discourse which follows it. The whole is prefaced by a prologue describing the nativity of the King (chapters iii) and concluded by an epilogue relating the passion and triumph of the King (chapters xxvi-xxviii).
The fivefold structure of this Gospel is probably modelled on the fivefold structure of the Old Testament law; it is presented as the Christian Torah (which means 'direction or 'instruction' rather than 'law' in the more restricted sense). The Evangelist is also at pains to show how the story of Jesus represents the fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures, and in places he even implies that the experiences of Jesus recapitulate the experiences of the people of Israel in Old Testament times. [bold by me-AP]
END QUOTE
It's interesting that the last chapter of the last book of the Torah [i.e. Deuteronomy 34] ends with Moses on mount Nebo surveying the Promised Land and then dying. With Joshua ready to succeed and conquer the Promised Land. Matthew ends with Jesus (the anti-type of both Moses the Lawgiver [cf. the Sermon on the Mount] and Joshua who shares the same name) who died (like Moses) but rose again standing on a mountain in Galilee to give His last instructions. On the mountain Jesus, like Joshua, goes out to conquer the world via His church/congregation promising to be with them always in their victories in discipling the Gentile nations/goyim. Whereas Joshua enters Palestine to phyisically kill the goyim who oppose him, Jesus commissions his spiritual army to exit outward from Jerusalem to share life to the outside goyim. [BTW, this seems to fit well with a Post-Mill eschatology]
The fact that such a Jewish book, written with a Jewish audience in mind, connects Jesus and the Holy Spirit with "the Name of the Father" would strongly suggest the co-divinity of the Son and Spirit. Jews of course would be zealous for the Name [HaShem] of YHVH. Yet the Jewish author of the Gospel had no qualms or scruples in making such a connection despite saying "in the Name" [singular] and not "Names" [plural]. One would think that in order to win Jewish followers he wouldn't needlessly offend them by making too close a connection between the Father and the other two persons. But he does it anyway. The most plausible reason (IMO) is because the other two persons are equally divine with the Father [as is suggested multiple times elsewhere in same the Gospel].
BTW, while Matt. 28:18-20 are Christ's last instructions in the Gospel of Matthew, I don't think those were actually the last words of Christ to His disciples. I think those were the ones recorded in Acts 1 before Christ ascended from the Mount of Olives (not on a mountain in Galilee).
DeleteWhereas Joshua enters Palestine to phyisically kill the goyim who oppose him, Jesus commissions his spiritual army to exit outward from Jerusalem to share life to the outside goyim. [BTW, this seems to fit well with a Post-Mill eschatology]
ReplyDeleteThe fact that such a Jewish book, written with a Jewish audience in mind, connects Jesus and the Holy Spirit with "the Name of the Father" would strongly suggest the co-divinity of the Son and Spirit. Jews of course would be zealous for the Name [HaShem] of YHVH. Yet the Jewish author of the Gospel had no qualms or scruples in making such a connection despite saying "in the Name" [singular] and not "Names" [plural].
Excellent parallel of the law, ending of Deut. beginning of Joshua, with Jesus, ending of Matthew and spiritual great commission, etc.
Are those your comments or somewhere in F. F. Bruce's book?
Very good insights.
Though I was surprised when I looked it up on my copy of F. F. Bruce's book "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" - I was surprised that he wrote that Matthew appeared after 70 AD.
I had always thought that F. F. Bruce would have held that Mark and Matthew were written around / between 50-65 AD. He does not tell us why he thinks that. For me, John A. T. Robinson has never been refuted on the early dating for the synoptic gospels. 45-65 AD, well before 70 AD.
What's in between QUOTE and END QUOTE are Bruce's words. The rest are mine. Though, I have to believe others have seen the parallels and contrasts too.
Delete