Die probleem met Matt 28:19

HF, Gauteng

Het julle dalk artikels of kan julle my dalk in die regte rigting wys aangaande Mat. 28:19. Ek is tans onder die verstane dat ons net een keer moet afsak in die water in die naam van Yeshua Messiah.

KOMMENTAAR

Dit lyk asof iemand dalk met Mat 28:19 gepeuter het. Nie een van die dissipels of apostels het ooit die formule van Mat 28:19 gebruik nie, maar nuwe gelowiges telkens in die Naam van Y’shua die Messias gedoop. Die formule “in die Naam van die Vader en die Seun en die Heilige Gees” is ‘n paar eeue na die aardse leeftyd van die Messias as ‘n kerklike formule in gebruik geneem en dis moontlik dat hierdie formule later by die teks van Mat 28:29 geïnkorporeer is om Skriftuurlike sanksie aan hierdie gebruik (en aan die leer van die Drie-eenheid) te gee. Die historikus Eusebius, wie se geskrifte oorwegend ouer is as die oudste beskikbare manuskripte waarop die Nuwe Testament gebaseer is, het hierdie teks dikwels aangehaal en nie één keer het die formule “in die Naam van die Vader en die Seun en die Heilige Gees” in sy aanhalings voorgekom nie. Hy het bloot die woorde “in my Naam” gebruik. Die volgende kommentators en gesaghebbende werke is onder die lang lys van Skrifkenners wat al hul bedenkinge oor hierdie teks uitgespreek het:

EW Bullinger: “As to the Greek MSS, there are none beyond the fourth Century, and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words.”

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, p 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.”

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, p 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.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, p 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, p 1015: “The Trinity.-…is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,…The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),…(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture…” “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19…This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying.

The Jerusalem Bible: “It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus,”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p 2637: “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.”

New Revised Standard Version: “Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity…”

James Moffett’s New Testament Translation: “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 +.”

By hierdie lys kan nog vele ander gevoeg word, maar ek meen bogenoemde is meer as genoeg. Hoop dit help so ‘n bietjie met die verstaan van hierdie vers.