Why do the scriptures differentiate between the three?
The Trinitarian formula of the “Father Son and Holy Spirit” is not part of the original text of Matthew 28:19.
Eusebius (260 – 339 AD) was a Roman Christian historian and is regarded as a well learned Christian scholar by the Catholic church (the only church that existed for close to 1500 years, before a Protestant ever set foot on this earth..). He became the Bishop of Caesarea in 314 AD. He quotes many verses in his works, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. Seventeen times in his works prior to Nicaea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name” without mentioning the Trinity baptism formula, not even once.
Here are a few interesting comments from well known scholars:
1. George H. Gilbert Quotes Mr Conybeare and says the following on Matthew 28:19:
“There is important external evidence against the existence of this formula in manuscripts current before the time of Eusebius, and various recent writers have urge that the practice of baptism in Acts and Epistles of Paul is utterly incompatible with the view that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (E.g., Martineau, The Seat of Authority in religion, page 515; Percy Gardener, Exploratio Evangilica, page 445; Sabatier, Religions of Authority and Religion of Spirit, page 52; Harnack, History of Dogma Volume 1, 79, note).”
George H. Gilbert then says:
“It is obvious that the location of this word between ‘Father’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ is virtually a claim that the Son stands on the same level with them. The position takes him up, as it were, into the very center of the Deity. But to this claim the words of Jesus in our oldest sources stand opposed. Unique and divine as is their claim regarding the character of the Master a claim like that of the Baptismal formula, but in the clearest, most unambiguous terms assert what is diametrically opposed to the implication of that passage. They assert manhood; they deny attributes of deity (e.g., omniscience and absolute goodness). Therefore it is impossible to hold that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels can have spoken the words of the Baptismal formula” [1]
2. James Moffatt’s NT Translation in his footnote (page 64) says the following words:
“….it may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5….”
3. Bultmann says:
“As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, (the apocryphal Catholic Didache) suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded (changed) to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[2]
4. Principal A. J. Grieve says:
“The command to baptize into the threefold name is late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words ‘baptizing… spirit’ we should probably read simply ‘into my name’, i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, or ‘in my name’” [3]
5. Former Priest Tom Harpur:
“All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake’s commentary was first published: “The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion….“[4]
[1] George Holley Gilbert, The Biblical World > Vol. 34, No. 6, Dec., 1909 , page 374 to 378
[2] R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament. Page 133
[3] Principal A. J. Grieve, A Commentary on the Bible (1920), page 723
[4] Former Priest Tom Harpur “For Christ’s sake, page 103
The formula of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is not original. The book of Acts is enough to throw it in the trash bin, being that the 12 disciples never baptized anyone using it. I also showed that Eusebius read the verse as “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name”, which is exactly what the 12 disciples did. They baptized in the name of Messiah, Yeshua, not "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". That is a later addition to the Gospel of Matthew. The Catholics, had the bad habit of editing manuscripts to support their theology and that's exactly what we're witnessing here with Matthew.
YHWH is One, not two or three "hypostasis", sharing the same "ousia". That's a non-semitic concept, originating with Greek philosophy, not the faith of Israel.
