WTS says "Just accept!" (Worship Book chap 12)

by ozziepost 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

ozziepost

A scripture that is not often dwelt on in its entirety by the R&F is Matthew 28:19 which reads: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” Usually the latter part is omitted; perhaps being considered "Babylonish".
The new “Worship” book (the ‘must read’ for all prospective Dubs) seeks to address that ‘issue’ by devoting much of chapter 12 to it. So the question is raised on page 114 of the book “What does it mean to be baptized “in the name of the Holy Spirit”?
Note this explanation in paragraph 10:
“It means acknowledging the function and activity of the holy spirit. And what is the holy spirit? It is Jehovah’s active force, with which he accomplishes his purpose.”
Note especially the expression “acknowledge the activity of the holy spirit”. What does this mean? Think about it: What about acknowledging the activity of Satan and his demons? Does it mean we are to be baptized in the name of them also, since we “acknowledge” their existence?
Throughout the chapter the words “acknowledging” and “accepting” are used, as in “acknowledge that Jehovah is the Life-Giver” and “accepting his name, office, authority, purpose, and laws.”
But isn’t being baptized in the name of the Father more than this? As the same chapter later points out, “complete immersion in water is a fitting symbol of this personal dedication, as baptism is a symbolic burial”. This, of course, is being used here to justify the Dub claims that the body must be completely immersed, submerged, in water to be acceptable. Nonetheless, the act of baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit” must be more than a mere “accepting” or “acknowledging” of their existence.
Cheers, Ozzie
peacefulpete

Ozzie...you are right that this is an inconsistancy. The overtly Trinitarian phrase has been whitewashed by the WT in it's efforts to harmonize the text with other passages. It would be good if you did a net search on the verse, say using the phrase,"Matthew 28 interpolation" as the search. The phrase was to all available evidence added late 3rd early 4th century.
Maverick

That printing company masquerading as a religion, (WatchTower) has gone beyond that scripture and inserted loyalty to them in the baptism. They slid right in front of Jesus and claim that they, not Jesus, are non anointed mankinds salvation. Then they glorify themselves as the Faithful Slave, base on one scripture with no supporting Biblical evidence. And hammer the RF with terms like Gods Earthly Orginization, which has NO scriptural support. All they can do is tell the J-duds to, "just accept"! Maverick
mizpah

I'm not sure the Watchtower infers that acknowledging the Father, Son and holy spirit is the only criteria for baptism. However mislead Jehovah's Witnesses are, one does have to admire the zeal and commitment they have for their belief. That is why they view baptism as a "dedication" of themselves to God. And they do devote their time and life to their faith. Other religious groups have wished they had the same determination from members in their own groups.
The Watchtower always gives a general application to Matthew 28. It fails to recognize that this command was directed to "the eleven disciples" specifically. There is no indication that it was a command for all Christians. Not all were "evangelizers" in the early church. However, when all members of the organization are involved in selling and distributing Watchtower literature, it makes for good business.
garybuss

Baptism the word, comes from the word "bath". Because whole body bathing was so seldom done by the Jews, whole body bathing is often read about in the context of rituals. Nude bathing is of pagan origin. See the article, "Nude Bathing, Is It For Christians?". Nude bathing is only read about in the Bible in the context of sin like Bathsheba, the adulterous wife of David and the mother of Solomon, in the context of rituals like purification after eating unbled meat, or the rite of baptism.

Nude bathing was practiced by the pagan Romans and the Greeks and ruins of their bath houses remain today. Witnesses are not educated about the conflict of avoiding things of pagan origin and the origins of nude bathing. GaryB
NeonMadman
It would be good if you did a net search on the verse, say using the phrase,"Matthew 28 interpolation" as the search. The phrase was to all available evidence added late 3rd early 4th century.

Peacefulpete, you mentioned this in another thread some time ago, and I've been meaning to look into it since then. This morning, I took a bit of time and did as you suggested. The results of my web search (on Yahoo) are found below. In summary, what I found was mainly a bunch of Oneness Pentecostal sources (which are non-Trinitarian) offering largely theological arguments of the sort that say: "There are lots of other texts that speak of baptism in the name of Jesus, so baptism in the name of the entire Trinity must be an insertion in the text." I don't find this argument at all compelling for a couple of reasons. First, in order to impeach a text of scripture as an interpolation, I think you need a stronger reason than, "my theology doesn't agree with it." Second, I see no contradiction between baptizing in the name of Jesus and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To baptize in the name of the three does not exclude baptizing in the name of the one.
The Oneness sources also seem to be a bit inbred, as they appear to have a great deal of their own literature, and tend to quote in circles. Many of the articles I saw quoted the same few sources repeatedly, and the Conybeare treatise looks like it might be their ultimate source on the topic. By way of analogy, what I’m seeing among the Oneness Pentecostals on this topic would be similar to a Watchtower writer trying to make an argument on a biblical textual question, but citing only other Watchtower publications on the topic, all of whom ultimately derived their information from an article written by Pastor Russell way back when.
Mind you, I'm not arguing conclusively that the Trinitarian formula is not an insertion. I am reserving judgment on that issue until I see some evidence, although I am inclined to accept it as part of the original text unless and until convincing evidence to the contrary is provided. I don't believe that that one text is necessary to demonstrate the doctrine of the Trinity biblically; there are many other texts that also support the doctrine. Also, I don’t believe that Matthew 28:19 is conclusive in proving the Trinity (though it certainly points strongly in that direction). As a JW, I quoted that verse all the time, and never believed that it proved the Trinity doctrine, so it is quite possible to recognize that verse as being genuine without accepting the Trinity.
My question at this point is, what sources have you seen that lead you to believe that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is an insertion? Did you draw this conclusion by reviewing the Oneness literature, or do you have any more scholarly sources on the topic that you could refer me to? If it were the former, I’d have to say that I’m far from convinced.
Anyway, there are the sites that I visited, and a few comments on each:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1941_328407
Link to Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. Ignatius quotes the Trinitarian formula from Matthew.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/15.htm
Argues for the authenticity of the wording. Appears to be an evangelical site.

http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html. Soul Harvest Ministries, an evangelical source. Text of a booklet that purports to examine both sides of the question. I am printing it out to read, but I suspect it will argue for the authenticity of the text.

http://www.ynca.com/trinitarian_baptism_and_matthew_.htm. Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly, a Sacred Names group. The Sacred Names Movement grew out of the Churches of God (Seventh Day), which grew out of the original Adventist movement under William Miller. The group denies the Trinity, and cites a number of sources to impeach the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28. My first impression upon reviewing the quotations (and without actually referring to the sources themselves) is that they are quoting “Watchtower-style,” which is to say, extracting portions of the quotations that seem to support their argument, without regard to whether their usage reflects the intent of the original source. For example, they quote the NRSV Bible as follows: “New Revised Standard Version notes on Matthew 28:19: ‘Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to [Yahshua] and that it represents later church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity...’” It sounds like the NRSV writer is actually arguing against the contention that Matthew 28 contains an interpolation, but that the YNCA writer has quoted only that portion of the text that suits his own purposes. Incidentally, I tried to confirm this in my own copy of the NRSV, but no such footnote appears, at least in the edition that I have.

http://www.jesusonly.net/html/matt2819.html. I think this is a Oneness or “Jesus Only” site. Oneness groups believe in a form of modalism, which teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are actually only one person, who manifests himself in different ways at different times (much as one man can be a husband, a father, and an employer). This differs from the Trinity teaching in that the Trinity is understood to be three distinct divine Persons, each of whom is fully God. The author of this site attempts to make a scriptural argument against the Trinitarian formula in baptism, and asserts that the text may contain an interpolation, but offers no actual evidence for the latter.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html. Another online appearance of the booklet found in #3 above.

http://godglorified.com/Conybeare.htm. This looks like a highly technical work, with a lot of reference to the Greek (which I am not qualified to interpret). I’m printing it out to get what I can from it. The site itself appears to be another Oneness site, although the writer presents a different view regarding Matthew 28:19 than does the writer of the Oneness site discussed in #5 above. He attempts to explain the verse theologically in other articles on the site, so I presume that he regards the text as genuine.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm. Yet another Oneness site. As with #5 above, attempts to make a mainly theological argument against the Trinitarian formula in the text. And, again, the Conybeare treatise is referred to as support for the teaching. There are a number of interesting articles on this site, though, including one making a case against the accuracy of the name “Jehovah.” (see http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jehovah.htm )

http://www.kencollins.com/speedbump-01.htm. This website belongs to a minister in a Disciples of Christ church. He argues in favor of the accuracy of Matthew 28:19 based upon an identical Trinitarian baptismal formula being included in the Didache, which dates from the latter half of the first century.

http://www.apostolic.edu/biblestudy/files/part11.txt. Site belonging to Apostolic Ministries, another Oneness group, affiliated with Indiana Bible College, a Oneness school. This article uses other scripture texts that speak of baptism in the name of Jesus (as well as similar references from a few of the early church fathers) to argue that Matthew 28:19 must contain an interpolation.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/reply-to-craig.html. This is an article on a skeptical site (The Secular Web), and generated a hit because of the keywords used. But it doesn’t consider Matthew 28:19. I include it only because it is the only actual skeptical site generated by the search.
mizpah

Good research and good question, Neonmadman.
But I am uncomfortable with your comment about Matthew 28 being a "Trinitarian formula." Perhaps, if it said that you should be "baptised in the name of the Father, the son and the holy spirit because they are one...." it would have been so...much like the proven interpolation of 1 John 5:7. But it does not.
Whatever, we anxiously await to see a response from peacefulpate.
run dont walk

interesting, never looked at it that way, thanks ........
NeonMadman

But I am uncomfortable with your comment about Matthew 28 being a "Trinitarian formula." Perhaps, if it said that you should be "baptised in the name of the Father, the son and the holy spirit because they are one...." it would have been so...much like the proven interpolation of 1 John 5:7. But it does not.
I used that expression because many of the references that I looked up referred to it that way. I have no particular affinity for the term, although I'm not really uncomfortable with it either. Of course, the fact that the three have a single "name" might seem to imply that they are one (it doesn't say, "the names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit").
NeonMadman

A late note on the research above: Now that I have had a chance to print out the material in #3 (which is repeated in #6) in my list of references, I see that it is, not an evangelical source, but another Oneness site, and that the material argues against the authenticity of the standard rendering of Matthew 28:19. The argument seems to be a bit more detailed than the others, so I will be reading it within the next few days to see whether it makes a convincing case.

WTS says "Just accept!" (Worship Book chap 12)

Share this