Whom will we see in heaven? Will we see one, or three? Will we see one throne, or three? If we say there in one throne, then who is sitting on the throne? Is Jesus sitting on the right hand of God? If we say there are three thrones, would that be a tritheistic view of God?. How many thrones are there and who is sitting on the throne? Many do not have a clear understanding of how we will see God in heaven. What do the Scriptures say?
In the book of Revelation John shows us the scene of one throne and one sitting on the throne.
Revelation 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
The book of Revelation tells us that Jesus is the Alpha, Omega, beginning, ending, Almighty, etc.
Revelation 1:7-8 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:17-18 17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
In Revelation 21, the one sitting on the throne is called Alpha, Omega, beginning, ending, and God.
Revelation 21:5-7 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
We see in the first chapter of Revelation that Jesus is the Alpha, Omega, beginning, ending, one which was, which is, and which is to come, Almighty, the first, and the last. The one sitting on the one throne in heave is making these same claims, using the same descriptive terms. The one sitting on the one throne is Jesus.
How can Jesus be sitting on the throne if he is the lamb standing before the throne? The lamb slain standing before the throne is a popular argument that is often used to show that Jesus is not the one sitting on the throne.
Revelation 5:6-7 6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
If this verse is to be taken literally, then Jesus is separate from God, and he is an actual slain lamb in heaven. This verse is actually symbolic of the atonement, showing that Jesus was slain for our sins. Jesus was only slain in his humanity. It doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t God, or that he was separate from the one of the throne. Verse 6 shows that the lamb actually came from the midst of the throne.
We see this again in Revelation 7:17:
Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
The one sitting on the throne is the lamb. Our Father became our redeemer.
Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
The throne is called the throne of God and of the lamb.
Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Notice the singular pronouns. This continues in the next verse.
Revelation 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
These verses refer to God and the lamb as ‘he’. Jesus is God manifest in flesh.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Jesus is God and the lamb.
In heaven, we will see one sitting on the throne- Jesus. In Jesus we will see all the fullness of the Godhead.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
When we see Jesus we will see the Father.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Isn’t Jesus sitting on the right hand of God? If we look at the right hand of God as literal we run into several problems in scripture.
Some verses say that Jesus is sitting, while others say that he is standing.
Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Acts 7:55-56 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
This interpretation would make Jesus separate from God, making two beings, and making Jesus not God.
If we take these verses literal, then we have Jesus literally sitting or standing ON God’s right hand. If we take these verses literal, then we must take other verses literal that speak of Jesus and God, which means that Jesus is IN the bosom of the Father.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Looking at the books of Psalms, we see David with God AT his right hand.
Psalm 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
It is clear from their contexts that all of these verses are figurative.
To show three thrones in heaven is tritheism- the belief in three gods. The idea of three thrones contradicts Scripture, as Revelation 4:2 is clear there is one throne. Also, to say that there is one throne begs the question, who is sitting on the throne?
We see from Scripture that Jesus, our Father and Redeemer, is the one God sitting on the one throne in heaven. There is one throne, and one sitting on the throne- Jesus, the Alpha, Omega, beginning, ending, first, last, who was, is, and is to come, the Almighty.
I’ve got a feeling about the book of Revelation, that it was meant to be something more than prophecy, etc… and it involves this subject
Very interesting indeed
Thank You for your research! I am an apostolic, and believe in the ONENESS of GOD! One throne in heaven is what proves that there is no Trinity! Jesus is the Godhead! AMEN!
A trinitarian was quite baffled when I told her I believe in one God who’s name was Jesus. She couldn’t understand. She told me there are three distinct persons and three distinct thrones in heaven and that the bible puts everything in threes. I still to this day don’t know what bible she has been reading.
Yes God is triune, but so are we, and we were made in his image. Jesus Christ is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit. The fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
Genesis 1:1
Ephesians 3:9
Genesis 1:26,27
Colossians 1:15; 2:9
1 John 5:7
John 14:6
Revelation
1 Corinthians 15:44
1 John 3:16
John 3:16
Matthew 1:20
Isaiah 9:6
Thanks for sharing:)
I am a ONE GOD believer always have been and always will be! Very excellent article, thank you for sharing it with us!
God Bless to all..Yes of course there is only one God and Father of all…We know HIM as JESUS..its on the Bible if we really study his WORD He will reveal himself to us..trinity is nonsense to me anymore..the only ONE siting on the blue sapphire Throne on high..our Savior,Redeemer,Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace, our Mighty Archangel Michael, our Counselor, Judge of all the earth and Friend…and many other names..Amen
I see a distinct difference in scripture between an archangel and God. Satan was Lucifer the most beautiful of angels. ALso it seems clear that the son,, Jesus Christ obeyed the Father and taught us to pray to the Father. Some may argue that it is all semantics. Now I see through a glass darkly, I believe the Trinity is a mystery that will be revealed when we see HIM face to face.
This is a very interesting topic. I just discussed this with my friends during our bible study at home. The simple formula is God is ONE. The SON=FATHER=HOLY SPIRIT. We should not confuse the humanity of Jesus with the divinity of him. The Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. You may be somewhat confuse or think that the Father is separate from the Son when you read certain passages such as ” I will pray the father and he will send you another comforter”, or “Father unto your hand I commit my spirit”, or ” and when u pray say Our Father….. the list is long especially in the book of John. However, how do we understand these passages? It’s simple. Many atimes in the scriptures Jesus addresses people using the human part of him. The human aspect of Jesus prayed to the Father (the Divine part) everytime. If you don’t understand it that way, then it means that u believe we have three Gods. You may say that u believe in 3 God in 1, but that will not make sense because some things that Jesus said may mean that if He is different from the Father, then He is inferior to the Father though they are both God. How do u explain that. Jesus actually gave a vivid clue of his whole being when he answered Phillip question in John 14:9. Phillip wanted to know the father, but Jesus replied him that He was surprised that Phillip had been with him for so long and yet did not know that He is the Father. That is what Jesus replied if you read the verse very well.
you people doesn’t know how to interpret the Scripture. Why are you so concerned about how many thrones in heaven?. The real question is will you be there at the end?. This my question to you then? who raised Jesus from the dead? why did He say Father into Your hand I commit my spirit?
Read Romans 6:4 – 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
John 1:1-2 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
The WORD who is Jesus Himself was with God in the beginning – then there is already 2 person to that.
This is what I believe, the triune God is not three IN One, but they are 3 AS One. It means they function as ONE God, none of them do their own thing, but they work together in unity. The Father is the one who SPEAK – COMMAND, The Son is the CREATING, and the Holy Spirit is FILLING – making beautiful.
example: Gen. 1:3 – God said: LEt there be light: means THE FATHER SPEAKS, THE WORD THAT HE USE IS JESUS since JESUS is the WORD and CREATED the light because He is the Creator, The HOLY SPIRIT makes it shine/makes it beautiful, gives life to that light.
Why will GOd say: Let US make man in our image and likeness? – He didnt say it to angels because angels have no power to create: GOd the Father command/speaks, Jesus create man, Holy Spirit(God breathe) gives life.
again when Adam and Eve sinned: God said, Now the man has become like ONE of US – knowing good and evil? Who is God mentioning in that verse that One of them have become like man knowing good and evil? it was Jesus, right! (but God is peaking this in eternity, no time.)
we cannot deny in many ocassions in the bible that gives us clarity that Jesus meantioned the Father, that He came to do the will of Him who sent Him, He also said I only do the things that My Father do… Yes Jesus said, I and the Father are One, this means that In Jesus body, not only Jesus has become physical but the Father and the Holy Spirit lives in Him. That’s why when Jesus was here on this earth, the Triune God came down on this earth through Jesus body…. (Remember His name Immanuel – means GOD with us)
john 14:9- 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
John 8:16 -19 – 16 And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
Jesus is God. Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am an Apostolic believer.. and Jesus raised Himself from the deadJohn 2:19. Jesus answered them, ” Destroy this temple in three days and I will raise it up.. Jesus is God.. Isaiah Prophesied His name shall be EVER LASTING FATHER… Theres no other father besides Jesus
True, the most important thing is that we have our name in the Lambs Book of Life, and once we see HIM face to face, we ak him all of our un answered questions.
This is century old discussion. There are some believers that interpret the scriptures to indacte that their are 2 persons in the Godhead.
I have one question for those who believe in the trinity. Which person of the trinity overshadowed Mary for the mirraculous conception. The Bible says that she would be found with child of the Holy Ghost. (paraphrazing). Where I come from,the one causing the conception is refered to as the Father. One more question, If the 3 are coequal, where is the Holy Ghost in the Book of Revelation,past the 2nd chapter?
WE are One GOD Believer also and I am holding three of my best memory Bibe verse in my whole life: DEUTERONOMY 6:4. ISAIAH 43:11. REVELATION 22:21.. The name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST revealed.. in these last passge of Bible Scriptures in the Bible…. Amen and Amen.
GOD BLESS US ALL IN JESUS Name.. Amen and Amen… Forever and Amen and Amen.. AMEN.
Architect NEIL BRON JALAC.. BROTHERS IN CHRIST ALONE.. PRAISE THE LORD..
I belive all that i have read for the past 7 year now i am haveing vishion of god him self and i all was say jesus is god i saw the battle of saton and jesus in haven all so i saw my self in a vishion in haven lydow on a golden alter and the 1 ho sat on the trone and the 7 golden lampstan and 24 elders
The commonality of all of these comments is that they all seek to understand the Trinity or non-Trinity (based upon one’s doctrinal view) through the basis of mathematical equations. This is a limitation in itself. Our knowledge of the spiritual things beyond this world may be based upon many things that are classified as celestial or terrestrial, but our knowledge (regardless its magnitude) is limited. Example: who can comprehend the “simple” phrase that “God is from EVERLASTING to EVERLASTING.”?? Some have the idea that before God created man and woman or the Universe He sat back and twittled His thumbs. The Trinity is not a revelation nor a doctrine, it is a mystery and that mystery will remain so until we see Him Face-to-Face. By the way, I may be incorrect in this because I haven’t completed my Biblical research, but as it stands right now: whenever the term “Throne” is used towards God’s ownership it is always singular … If one examines the terminology “Great White Throne” there is only one, never two. And Jesus said that His Father has turned over to Him ALL judgment and, consequently, it is the advent of the Judgment Seat of Christ and The Great White Throne that are indivisible … it is two separate events, but one throne.
Hello children of the one true living God, please pray that you will be accounted worthy to escape the hour of temptation that is going to come upon the entire world. And pray that you will also be accounted worthy to stand in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
God is not the author of CONFUSION! Neither is He confused about His identity. We are the ones confusing ourselves. We ought to leave Gods Word the way it is and not to add our own interpretations to it. Gods Word is self explanatory. Jesus was very plain about His identify in the synoptic gospels (that He is the Son of God) His disciples did not see Him differently, neither did they preach a different Jesus. Please let us be careful here knowing that we are dealing with Gods word and there are penalty when we add what we feel is correct. Lets take Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus (1Timothy 1:4, Titus 2:9) The focus of the Apostles was never to prove how many thrones are there in heaven and who was in charge but they concentrated on winning souls into the kingdom! How many souls have you won? And how many have you descipled? You see when we are not busy for the Lord, the result would be to engaged in argument on things that would not add value to your relationship with God and with your closest neighbours. We are searching for new things while the ones we are familiar with (like Love, Holiness, Patients, Faithfulness, Faith, Sanctification, Evangelism, Meekness, Truthfulness, Forgiveness etc) has little or no place in your life. Please watch your life and pray.
Knowing this oneness truth now gives me so much peace and it’s so much more exciting! God bless and thank you for sharing this Revelation truth!!! Also I obeyed Acts2:38 since I now know Jesus is my God who was manifested in the flesh. Acts2:38 Peter said Repent and be baptized everyone one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. … Wow!!! I realize now everyone in the Bible were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Read the entire book of Acts. Hallelujah
Jesus said ‘Do not call me Father. There is only one Father and He is in Heaven.’ Jesus also said ‘Do not call me good. There is only One who is good and He is in Heaven.’ God the Father told Jesus that He would give him all those who accepted him.
Jesus said ‘My Father is greater than I’
‘that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ (John 17:3)
‘he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father’ (Matthew 26:39)
‘During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.’ (Hebrews 5:7)
‘Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22)
For it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God of all our ancestors—who has brought glory to his servant Jesus by doing this (Acts 3:13)
‘Behold, My servant, whom I have chosen, in whom My soul is well pleased.’ (Matt 12:18)
Even the simple act of accepting Jesus into your life tells you clearly that Jesus and God the Father are separate. All ‘Jesus, Jesus, Jesus’ people have NO idea of how to lead someone to Christ. The bible states clearly:
‘If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (Lord means ‘owner’ e.g. Landlord = Land owner. God the Father told Jesus that he would ‘give’ him (ownership) all those who accepted him i.e. Jesus) and BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART that God the Father raised him (Jesus) from the dead – you will be saved’.
There are endless scriptures clearly stating that Jesus is separate from and always bowed down to his Father.
You’re confusing his deity with his humanity.
Could you explain Revelation 3:21 to me?
There are endless opinions concerning the godhead and each is convinced they are right leading to a division which is non-scriptural and prohibited in the very scriptures that we read.
Jesus said he is the son of God and even called God, his God 4 times in Revelation 3:12 after he was glorified and appeared to be like God.
There is no where in the Bible where it says you must believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved, nor does it say you must believe in the trinity in order to be saved.
But what does the scriptures say, that we must believe that he is the Son of God and that his father raised him again from the dead in order to be saved.
So my advice is to refrain from all arguments concerning this topic and teach Jesus as the Son of God and the grace of God will be upon you.
Rev 3:21 is saying that if we too overcome we shall be set in the throne of God just as he Jesus overcame and had already been set in His father’s throne.
This is what this means: scripture makes it plain that all of us have sinned and have come short of the glory of God but Jesus came to pave a way for us to obtain that glory back and that glory is to look exactly like God in appearance and yet still be his son, and not be God himself.
That’s why in Rev 3:12 Jesus in his glorified state still called God the Father his God 4 times.
Jesus is the only one who possess that glory right now and so he is called the only begotten son. All of us will obtain it one day too, but that will not make us God, rather we will look like him.
Looking like someone is not the same as being him.
Stephen said he saw the glory of God and the son of man Jesus standing at the right hand of God. This is obvious he saw two things, one is the bright light that no man can look upon less they die and yes indeed he did die shortly after he had looked upon it and the son of man. Stephen saw only one person, and that was a glorified human person who was Jesus. That glory wasn’t a person but the glory of The Invisible God, the desire of all ages.
One day in heaven we all gonna be standing or sitting right beside that same glory and that’s when Rev 3:21 will be fulfilled.
Good study
Unless one is lead by holly spirit, no one can know this. You’re surely direct to write this through him.
It’s hard to teach here because they dont alloy enough space to type, Isa. 9:6, Matt. 1:23, Rev. 4:2 are a few to help
LOOK HERE FOR MORE INFO!
http://WWW.LEOLEE3215.WIX.COM/PASTOR-WEB
Canney in Encyclopedia of Religion (Routledge, 1921) at 53 explains that the change to Matt 28:19 followed rather than preceded changes in doctrine:
Persons were baptized at first in the ‘name of Jesus Christ’ (Acts 2:38, 48) or in the ‘name of the Lord Jesus.’ (Acts 8:16;19:5.) Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Shem-Tob Confirms The Correct Name To Baptize In
There is no variant in the Greek text tradition that predates 325 AD which covers Matthew 28:19. This is the verse that tells us to baptize in the name of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
However, all scholars insist, even Roman Catholic ones, that the RCC tampered with the verse and added a trinitarian formula.1 [See Footnote 1 at end.]
This is bolstered by the fact that in Acts, the baptismal formula is consistently different than in the Greek version of Matthew 28:19. First, Acts 19:3-5 teaches: “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Likewise in Acts 2:39, Peter teaches: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In Acts 8:16 “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, we read: “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 22:16, we read: “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Thus, the Greek-Matthew 28:19 has Jesus command use of a trinitarian formula which, if valid, would implausibly mean the apostles and early church disobeyed Jesus and improperly baptized in only Jesus’ name. Hence, the trinitarian formula is highly doubtful.
However, all scholars insist, even Roman Catholic ones, that the RCC tampered with the verse and added a trinitarian formula.1 [See Footnote 1 at end.]
This is bolstered by the fact that in Acts, the baptismal formula is consistently different than in the Greek version of Matthew 28:19. First, Acts 19:3-5 teaches: “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Likewise in Acts 2:39, Peter teaches: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In Acts 8:16 “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, we read: “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 22:16, we read: “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Thus, the Greek-Matthew 28:19 has Jesus command use of a trinitarian formula which, if valid, would implausibly mean the apostles and early church disobeyed Jesus and improperly baptized in only Jesus’ name. Hence, the trinitarian formula is highly doubtful.
Further proof is we have the parallel passage in Mark that also lacks the trinitarian formula. Thus, both the Shem-Tob Matthew and the parallel Marcan text lack a trinitarian baptismal formula. We find Matthew 28:19 in the Shem-Tob reads simply—just as simply as Mark’s Gospel reads:
Go2
Thus, the Shem-Tob allows us to confidently tell our brothers and sisters in Christ that the name in which to baptize is simply the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: Yahshua.
1. Eusebius pre-325 AD seventeen times fully quoted this passage, and every time it did not have the trinitarian baptismal formula. However, his post-325 AD / Nicea quotes all contained the trinitarian formula. Professor Tabor comments: “Lack of Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19-20 is unique [to Shem-Tob] but seems to be in codices that Eusebius found in Caesarea: he quotes (H.E. 3.5.2): ‘They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, “Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.’” (Tabor, supra.)
2. Mark 16:15 says: “Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”
Rives’ Supplemental Notes 9/3/2015
In addition, Eusebius apparently was relying upon the original Hebrew Matthew either directly or indirectly when his first 17 quotes from Matthew’s ending omitted the Trinitarian formula. For Eusebius lived in Caesarea, and Eusebius mentions one Pamphilus as his source for Matthew. Then when we compare that fact against a contemporary writing from Jerome ca 400 AD about the original Hebrew Matthew that “most believe” was written by Matthew, we read that Jerome said it was in the Library at Caesarea, and one Pamphilus had carefully “collected it” — apparently meaning made well-known extracts from it. These sources below prove these facts. Hence, most likely Eusebius was reading Pamphilus’ extract from the Hebrew Matthew written by Apostle Matthew, and hence Matthew 28 originally lacked the trinitarian formula.
So how strong is the evidence? The consensus of even the most conservative scholars is that the trinitarian formula at Matthew 28:19 was added to the original Matthew at a very late point in time: after the adoption of the trinity doctrine. The book of Acts and Paul’s epistles repeatedly show the original baptismal formula was to baptize into only Jesus’ name. See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15. The Protestant authority The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Funk & Wagnalls, 1908) at 435 agrees that Matthew 28:19’s trinity formula is a false addition:
Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61…Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula…is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas… [T]he formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed….
An equally important Protestant authority agrees. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. James Orr)(1915) Vol. 4 at 2637, under “Baptism,” it says:
Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation,…and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.
(Alexandrinas Codex)
…..
In Whose Name Are We Supposed to Baptize?
In Matthew 28:19 as it reads today, we read:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Thus, this uses the Trinitarian formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Is this how it originally read?
Based solely upon the Greek text tradition, all evangelical scholars as well as several Catholic authorities admit this bolded portion was added to the original Matthew. This is despite the fact no Greek text omits it — but all Greek surviving texts of this verse post-date the Trinitarian controversy that began in 325 AD and ended in 381 AD. (See below “Matthean Text Changed After 325 AD”)
There are several early versions of Matthew in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin which omit this trinitarian formula. In fact, the Hebrew version of Matthew (which long predated 325 AD) was quoted without this text. The early ‘fathers’ such as Jerome, Origen, etc., called it the Gospel According to the Hebrews (by Matthew) which they spoke about with reverence.
First Proof of Addition to Matthew 28 from Hebrew Matthew
The original Hebrew Matthew does not have what we read in present-day Matthew 28:19.
What we read in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew printed by Professor Howard is:
“19 Go
20 and teach them to carry out all things which I have commanded you forever.”
This parallels the similar passage in Mark 16:15: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Thus, if the Hebrew Matthew is the accurate original, there was no command from Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (For reason to believe many other variants in the Hebrew Matthew are more original, see our discussion of the “Hebrew Matthew.”)
All Other Scripture Says To Baptize Only In Jesus’ Name
Everywhere else in the NT (except present-day Matthew 28:19), it says that baptism is in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Hence, when we look at our current Scripture other than Matthew 28:19, it exclusively teaches us to baptize in one name: that of the Lord Jesus. And this is a strong proof of the invalidity of the trinitarian formula in the Greek canonical Matthew 28:19.
Biblical Evidence
First, Acts 19:3-5 teaches: “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Likewise in Acts 2:39, Peter teaches: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In Acts 8:16 “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, we read: “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 22:16, we read: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Early Church Only Baptized In Jesus’ Name
What confirms that the Acts formula is authentic, and the post-Hebrew Greek version of Matthew 28:19 is inauthentic, is that any notion of baptism in a name in the early church was solely in the name of Jesus Christ, and not the Trinity formula.
The Protestant authority The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Funk & Wagnalls, 1908) at 435 agrees that Matthew 28:19’s trinity formula is a false addition:
“Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61…Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula…is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas… the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed….”
An equally important Protestant authority agrees. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. James Orr)(1915) Vol. 4 at 2637, under “Baptism,” it says:
“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.”
The opinion of all leading Christian scholars agree. Christian Henry Forney inThe Christian ordinances: being a historical inquiry into the practice of trine immersion, the washing of the saints’ feet and the love-feast (Board of Publication of the General Eldership of the Church of God, 1883) at 83 explains that there was one and only one early practice: baptism into the name of Jesus Christ:
Neander, the prince of modern ecclesiastical historians, says that theformula of baptism which is regarded as the older is the “shorter one which refers only to Christ, to which there is allusion in the New Testament.” Dr. Hare also says in his Church History: “Baptism as an initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus.” This sentence occurs in his chapter on the “Apostolic Church,” in his ” History of the Christian Church.” Robinson, in his History of Baptism, says: “There is no mention of baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” in immediately post-Apostolic times.” This testimony, of a negative character, certainly becomes very strong and significant in view of the fact that Peter enjoined baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ.”
The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1911) Vol. 26 at 774 explains that analysis of Matthew 28:19 supports that it did not originally have the Trinity formula we see today, matching how other passages in the NT read:
There are traces in the New Testament of a baptismal confession simply of the name of Christ (1 Cor. i. 13, 15; Rom. vi. 2; cf. even the late verse Acts viii. 37), not of the threefold name. Moreover, textual criticism points to an early type of reading in Matt, xxviii. 19 without the threefold formula.
The Methodist Review (January 1906) Vol. 88 at 148 details the history that calls into question whether Matthew 28:19 originally read to mention Father, Son & Holy Spirit for the baptismal name to use:
Mark and Luke have no baptismal command whatever, and the spurious ending of Mark contains no reference to baptism, but only to preaching the gospel to every creature. And there is reason to believe that originally the commandment in Matthew referred only to baptism in the name of Christ. This reading, which can be traced down as far as the fourth century, would correspond with the fact that in the apostolic age and beyond baptism was administered in the name of Christ. The Acts of the Apostles leaves no doubt on this point. Peter exhorted his hearers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ that they might receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 2. 38). …[B]aptism in the name of Christ is …[in] Acts 8. 16, where Peter and John are represented as praying for the converts of Samaria who had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus that they might receive the Holy Ghost;…Again in 10. 48 Peter exhorted the heathen to be baptized in the name of Christ. In Ephesus (Acts 19. 5) Paul baptized the disciples of John in the name of the Lord Jesus, while his language in 1 Cor. 1. 13 implies, and in Rom. 6. 3 declares, that the Christians were baptized only in the name of Jesus. The early Christian book, The Shepherd of Hermes, speaks repeatedly of baptism in the name of the Son of God. and a hundred years after the trinitarian formula was established in the church there was lively discussion as to whether baptism in the name of Jesus,which was still practiced by some, should be recognized as valid. When and under what circumstances the longer formula came into use we do not know; even as we do not know how Matthew’s “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” took the place of the formula “God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit.” It is entirely probable that a formula with three numbers arose in connection with the custom of trine immersion,….
In agreement is the additional following resource: Maurice Arthur Canney, Encyclopedia of Religion (Routledge, 1921) at 53 which says:
Persons were baptized at first in the “name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 48) or in the “name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 8:16;19:5.) Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. I,61.
The Matthean Text Changed After 325 AD
This change in Matthew likely first took place after the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. We can infer this from the changes in Eusebius’s quotation of this passage after the Council. Ross Drysdale explains why:
Eusebius lived between 264-340 A.D….He had the advantage of being much closer to the original of Matthew 28:19. Yet he never quoted it in the Triune formula, but in all his citations (which number eighteen or more) he renders it: “Go and make ye disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you….Perhaps the most compelling evidence is that after his visit to Constantinople and his attendance at the Council of Nicea, he changed his references to Matthew 28:19 and began quoting it in the Triune formula. Thus he switched to the Trinitarian rendering immediately after Nicea, with its imperial threats of banishment to all who reject the newly officialized Trinity doctrine. He never knew or quoted any other form but the MY NAME rendition until his visit to Nicea. Discretion appears to be the better part of valor in his case. (Quoted in Oneil McQuick, The Voice (2005) at 459.)
Scholar Edmund Schlink inThe Doctrine of Baptism (Concordia, 1972) at 28, concluded the variance between Matthew 28:19 and the repeated reference in Acts to simply baptizing in Jesus’s name points to a deliberate alteration: “[It] must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the church.” (Quoted in Oneil McQuick, The Voice (2005) at 459.)
The article “Baptism, Early Church,” in Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1963) at 1016 concluded: “The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (textual, literary and historical) is distinctly against the view that Matthew 28:19 represent the exact words of Christ.” (Quoted in Oneil McQuick, The Voice (2005) at 459.)
Catholics even appear to admit their mischevious change in Matthew 28:19. The Jerusalem Bible (N.Y.: 1966), a scholarly Catholic work, states at 64 note g:
“It may be that this formula, [i.e., the Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus,”….”
We should not be thus surprised that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope, may have admitted four years after the Jerusalem Bible’s statement — in 1970 — that Rome created and added the Trinity formula to the liturgy of Baptism. Talking about the baptismal formula in the apostle’s creed, he wrote: “The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text came from the city of Rome.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (1970) – viewable quote.) He does go on to say it was based fundamentally upon Matthew 28:19, yet at the same time, he appears to speak like the Jerusalem Bible that the “profession” in Baptism — the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — had its origin at Rome in an evolution centuries after Christ.
The crack in the Catholic position began long prior to the Jerusalem Bible. In 1923, Bernard Henry Cuneo wrote The Lord’s Command To Baptize: An Historical Critical Investigation as part of the Catholic University’s New Testament Studies (No. 5)(Washington DC) where at page 27 / archive.org we read:
The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord…Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was original, and the longer trine formula was a later development.”
Thus, even the Catholic scholars and leaders recognize the compelling evidence that had Matthew 28:19 included the trinity-formula for baptism as Jesus’s own command, we inexplicably have abundant NT quotes that baptism was only in Jesus’ name.
The truth is obvious. The Trinity baptism text of Matthew 28:19 did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was a deliberate forgery, apparently added after 325 A.D. to support the emerging Trinity doctrine.
The Matthew 28:19 Forgery
July 29, 2013 at 9:57pm\l ”
What Did Matthew Actually Write, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” OR “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME”?
Questioning the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not a matter of determining how easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of established doctrinal views. Rather, it is a matter of discovering the very thoughts of our Elohim, remembering that His truth, and not our traditions, is eternal.
The information presented is extremely relevant to our faith. The amount of information supporting the conclusions presented may seem overwhelming, but for the serious seeker of truth, the search is well worth effort. I hope that you will allow the facts contained in this article to stir you into action. If you discover that you have not been baptized into the name of the true Elohim, and have knowingly accepted a substitute, how would YHWH respond?
However, it must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even the third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers” wanted it to become.)
No single early manuscript is free from textual error. Some have unique errors; other manuscripts were copied extensively and have the same errors. Again, our aim is to examine all of the evidence and determine as closely as possible what the original words were.
Considering the fact that all of the scriptures from Genesis thru Malachi make no reference to a Trinitarian God, and that from Mark thru Revelation we also find no evidence for a Trinity, we must consider the possibility that all the existing manuscripts may have one or more textual errors in common.
According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory:
The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.
More on these changes will be addressed later. Another writer said:
A great step forward is taken when we propose to give manuscripts weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the text which they contain. By proving how honest a text is rather than strictly how old it is provides us with a text which has content that is truly ancient. When we verify that a text is older than the fourth century, that it was current in the third or better still the second century, we still cannot be sure that it has not been altered. We need to try to verify that the text is pure text. There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century. What we wish to ascertain, however, is not merely an ancient text but an accurate text.
Of course, “the grossest errors,” that this writer is referring to are not doctrinal errors, but the errors in the text itself. Not surprisingly tho, some of these textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective doctrinal changes as they were being introduced in the early church. This historic falling away will be addressed later.
Just as with the manuscripts, all extant Versions, containing the end of Matthew, also contain the Triune name. But, of course, there is more to be considered than what is present in a document. One must also take into consideration what is absent. Again quoting from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: “In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional [Trinitarian] form …though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point.”
F.C. Conybeare further elaborated:
In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew.
So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional Triune name in Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at all. And curiously, not due to omission, but due to removal! We can not be certain of the motives why these pages were destroyed, but for the sake of our study we are now compelled to consult the early historical writings
Excerpts of Early Catholic Writers
Before we make references concerning these early writers, it should be emphatically stated, that if the question under consideration were one of doctrine, the written records of these Catholic writers would be totally irrelevant. Doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of YHWH alone, and not from Catholics, Jews or other sources. These self proclaimed “fathers” lived in an age of unrestrained heresy. Their testimony is valuable only because they provide an incidental and independent verification of scriptural texts much older than our current complete copies.
In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic [L. pater: “father”] evidence against it, so weighty that in the future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the ‘Three Witnesses’. – F.C. Conybeare in the Hibbert Journal
Could this bold statement be true? While not a single manuscript from the first three centuries remains in existence, we do have “eye witness” observations of at least two men who actually had access to manuscripts dating much earlier than our earliest. Others also quoted Matthew 28:19, whose written works have been preserved, dating to much earlier times than our best manuscript copies. We are about to examine who these men were and what the circumstances were. We will attempt to determine if these are reliable quotations of the original scriptures. How did they quote Matthew 28:19? Did their comments imply an existing controversy surrounding the use of the scriptures being quoted? Was a Trinity implied? These are questions that can be answered.
In the pages ahead, we will consider evidence from the following men, either via quotations from their writings, or as commented upon thru the writings of their contemporaries: 1) Eusebius of Caesurae, 2) The unknown author of De Rebaptismate, 3) Origen, 4) Clement of Alexandria, 5) Justin Martyr, 6) Macedonius, 7) Eunomius and 8) Aphraates.
Our search through their writings is not to establish any doctrine, but to find early witnesses to the verse in question.
Eusebius of Caesurae
Our first witness will be Eusebius of Caesurae, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. He was born around 270 A.D., and died around 340 A.D. He lived in times of rampant doctrinal change, was a Trinitarian, and in later life assisted in the formation of the Nicene Creed. Regarding our inquiry into Matthew 28:19, Eusebius is our key witness. Therefore, to establish his veracity as a credible witness, let us consider the following quotes: “Eusebius of Caesurae, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which would have perished had he not collected and edited them.” Robert Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg. 10
Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time…worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles…Eusebius…relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony. E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote.
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesurae in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning. Chapter 2, 9…Till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilus, a learned and devout man of Caesurae, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning. Dr. Wescott, in “General Survey,” page 108
Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. Peake Bible Commentary, page 596
The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesurae…Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent judgment. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if some-what confused, and at times not a little prejudiced, erudition. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature
Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known…The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation…Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins…in general terms, without entering into details…but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Mosheim, again in an editorial note.
Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded. Mosheim
Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek Manuscripts from about 300-340 A.D., none is so important as Eusebius of Caesurae, for he lived in the greatest Christian Library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say from this single collection of manuscripts at Caesurae derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his Library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries. F.C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October 1902.
Considering the honesty, ability and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the “New Testament” text, let us now move on to the his evidence concerning Matthew 28.
The Evidence of Eusebius
According to Ludwig Knupfer, the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius, among his many other writings compiled a file of corrupted variations of the Holy Scriptures, and:
…the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19.
His source material has been lost, as he later wrote:
…through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine.
But various authorities mention a work entitled Discrepancies in the Gospels, and another work entitled The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.
According to Conybeare:
Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany …in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’
Ploughman’s research uncovered all of these quotations except for one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording “in my name”. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following:
For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, “YHWH bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Yehushua every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.’ (col. 240, p. 136)
Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902:
It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one ‘Against Marcellus of Ancyra,’ and the other ‘About the Theology of the Church,’ he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae.
In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote:
It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Yehushua – this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.
Naturally an objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argued that Eusebius indeed found the traditional text in his manuscripts, but substituted the briefer wording in his works for fear of vulgarizing the “sacred” Trinitarian wording. Interestingly, a modern Bishop revived the very argument used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-8:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
According to Porson (in a preface to his Letters):
Bengel…allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no genuine manuscripts…Surely then, the verse is spurious! No! This learned man finds a way of escape. ‘The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost.’ Under what a lack of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument!?
Conybeare continued, refuting the argument of the Bishop of Ely:
It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius’ argument, when he cites the text, involves the text ‘in my name.’ For, he asks, ‘in whose name?’ and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10.
Finally, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states:
The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all the nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent.
Having considered the evidence of Eusebius, let us also consider some other early writers.
Other Early Writings
The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on ‘the power of the name of Yehushua invoked upon a man by Baptism’. (The Author of De Rebaptismate, from Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352.)
In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out. – Conybeare
In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a Gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: ‘And to the Apostles he gives the command:Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’” – Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare.
Justin [Martyr]…quotes a saying of Messiah..as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19. – Enc. of Religion and Ethics
In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin’s dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258: ‘YHWH hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Messiah, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Messiah.’ “The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation our of text was that they ignored the formula ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’ But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes the difficulty: and Justin is seen to have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340. – Conybeare (Hibbert Journal)
We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing, early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of the heretics were valid, if the name of Yehushua alone was invoked. (This decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its remaining faithful to the old use of invoking in Yehushua name). In the last half of the fourth century, the text ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ was used as a battle cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called ‘pneumato-machi’ or ‘fighters against the Holy Spirit’, because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son.They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a coordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius. – Conybeare (Hibbert Journal)
Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the ‘Apostolic Canons’ (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting to its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of the Apostolic Canon therefore runs: ‘If any bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Master, let him be deposed.’ “This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr.5:24), ‘for they baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Messiah.’ They accordingly used single immersion only. – Encyclopedia Biblia (Article on “Baptism”)
There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates…who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites our text in a formal manner, as follows: ‘Make disciples of all the nations, and they shall believe in me’. The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading ‘in my name’. But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible. – Conybeare
How the Manuscripts Were Changed
The following quotations demonstrate how freely the scribes altered the manuscripts of the “New Testament”, in stark contrast to the scribes of the “Old Testament” scriptures who copied the holy writings with reverence and strict accuracy.
These quotations also show the early heretical beginning of Trine immersion at a time when the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated, and how the “New Testament” writings were changed to conform to the syncretized practice.
In the case just examined (Matt. 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us: ‘The Greek Manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.’ (Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg. 424). “These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases, with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasize this point, because Dr. Wescott and Hort used to aver that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changed having been made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, J. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple to recognize the fact.” While this is perfectly true, nevertheless, “there are a number of reasons why we can feel confident about the general reliability of our translations.” – Peter Watkins, in an excellent article ‘Bridging the Gap’ in The Christadelphian, January, 1962, pp. 4-8.
Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing manuscripts…if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius therefore, is not without ground for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once. – Fraternal Visitor 1924, page 148, translation from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures…by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption, made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or Arians. Whiston – in Second Letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p. 15.
While trine immersion was thus an all but universal practice, Eunomius (circa 360) appears to have been the first to introduce (again) simple immersion ‘unto the death of Messiah.’ This practice was condemned on pain of degradation, by the Canon Apostolic 46 (al 50). But it comes before us again about a century later in Spain; but then, curiously enough, we find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy in opposition to the practice of the Arians. These last kept to the use of trine immersion, but in such a way as to set forth their own doctrine of a gradation in the three Persons. Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Article on Baptism)
In the ‘Two Ways’ of the Didache, the principal duties of the candidates for baptism and the method of administering it by triple immersion or infusion on the head are outlined. This triple immersion is also attested to by Tertullian (Adverses Prax 26)…The most elaborate form of the rite in modern Western usage is in the Roman Catholic Church. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church – pp. 125-126
The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church…Its object, of course, to honor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. Catholic Encyclopedia – page 262
If it be thought, as many critics think, that no manuscript represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the ‘Eusebian’ text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics – Article on “Baptism”
The exclusive survival (of the traditional text of Matt. 28:19) in all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise…But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices…The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominant party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. Conybeare – In the Hibbert Journal
Athanasius…met Flavian, the author of the Doxology, which has since been universal in Christendom: ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, etc.’ This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology: ‘Glory to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit’. Robert Roberts, in “Good Company” (Vol. iii, page 49)
Whiston, in Second Letter Concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, page 17, wrote:
The Eusebians…sometimes named the very time when, the place where, and the person by whom they (the forms of doxology) were first introduced…Thus Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures us in ‘Photius’ Extracts’ that in A.D. 348 or thereabouts, Flavianus, Patriarch of Antioch, got a multitude of monks together, and did there first use this public doxology, ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit’.
And regarding the alteration of scripture based on liturgical use, Hammond, in “Textual Criticism Applied to the N.T.” (1890) page 23 wrote:
There are two or three insertions in the New Testament which have been supposed to have their origin in ecclesiastical usage. The words in question, being familiarly known in a particular connection, were perhaps noted in the margin of some copy, and thence became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a transcriber’s own familiarity with the words may have led to his inserting them. This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns the insertion of the doxology at the close of the Master’s Prayer in Matthew 6, which is lacking in most of the best authorities. Perhaps also Acts 8:37, containing the baptismal profession of faith, which is entirely lacking in the best authorities, found its way into the Latin text in this manner.
Considering the evidence of the manuscripts, the versions and now the early writings, you should by now have come to conclusion that in the early centuries some copies of Matthew did not contain the modern Triune wording. Regardless of the opinions or positions taken by our commentators, we must at the very least admit that fact.
In legal practice where copies of an original lost document vary, the “Internal Evidence” is used to resolve the discrepancy. That is, a comparison of the undisputed text with text in question, in order to determine which of the variant wordings is more likely to be the original. With both variants in mind, we will now turn to the scriptures themselves for our internal evidence.
Internal Evidence
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) In this verse, the Greek word translated as “prove” is dokimazo, and it means, “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), to recognize as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy.”
In our efforts to determine which reading of Matthew 28:19 is original, we will submit both renderings to ten “tests”. In doing so, we will be able to recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious.
1. The Test of Context
When examining the context, we find that today’s Trinitarian wording lacks logical syntax, that is, the true understanding of the verse is obscured by a failure of the varying concepts to harmonize. If however, we read as follows, the whole context fits together and the progression of the instructions is comprehensible:
All power is given unto me…go therefore…make disciples in my name, teaching them…whatsoever I have commanded …I am with you… (Matthew 28:18-20)
2. The Test of Frequency
Is the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” used elsewhere in the scripture?
Not once.
Did Yehushua use the phrase “in my name” on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23.
3. The Test of Doctrine
Is any doctrine or concept of scripture based on an understanding of a threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any statement in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Yehushua? Yes! This is clarified in 1 Corinthians 1:13: “Is Messiah divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” These words, when carefully analyzed, suggest that believers should to be baptized in the name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable love, gave us His only Son to die in our stead, He being later raised to incorruptibility by the Spirit of YHWH. But it is the Master Yehushua Himself who was crucified, and therefore in His name believers must be baptized in water.
According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article XLIV:
There is but one way for a believer of ‘the things concerning the Kingdom of YHWH, and the name of Yehushua Messiah’ to put Him on, or to be invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose.” “As for it’s significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Messiah. It is the means of the believer’s identification with the Master’s death. – YHWH’s Way, pg. 190. The Father did not die, nor the Holy Spirit. As the scripture says, “buried with Him (Yehushua) in baptism,” not with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5)
R. Roberts used this explanation in “The Nature of Baptism”, page 13):
According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Messiah is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the ‘new and living way.’ And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that ‘there is none other name (than the name of Yehushua Messiah of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’ (Acts 4:12).
This, of course, is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that replaces Messiah from His position as the sacrificial Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation?
Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, “in my name.”
4. The Test of Analogy
Does any other scripture make reference to baptism in the Triune name? No. Does any other scripture reference baptism in the name of Yehushua? Yes! The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Yehushua “in His name.” (John 14:26) This is because Yehushua is the “common denominator” [Literally: Name] in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent by the following scriptures:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See also John 7:39).
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of YHWH, and the name of Yehushua Messiah, they were baptized, both men and women.
Notice that they were baptized as a result of the preaching of the name of Yehushua Messiah, not the titles “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” By analogy, we should therefore be baptized in Yehushua’ name, because the invoking of His Name is the catalyst of understanding that prepares us for the baptism of the Spirit, which is also given in His name. (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5)
5. The Test of Consequence
When we are baptized, do we “put on” the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? No. Do we put on the name of Yehushua? Yes. When we are baptized in the name of Yehushua, according to all baptismal accounts recorded in scripture, we are quite literally being baptized “into” the name of Yehushua.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Messiah have put on Messiah.
No mention is made in scripture of any baptism being related to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Every actual account mentions a clear connection with the person of Messiah, and His atoning sacrifice.
6. The Test of Practice
Did the disciples, as they were implementing the “Great Commission” ever once baptize into the Trinity? Never! Did they baptize in the name of Yehushua? Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.) The argument has been made when defending Triune immersion; “I would rather obey Yehushua, than to imitate the Apostles.” This kind of reasoning though, places the Apostles in rebellion, and makes all Apostolic baptisms contrary to the word of YHWH. If all of YHWH’s Word was inspired, and it was, then we should not try to pit one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of YHWH’s Word in proper context, and rightly apply it to our lives. It is easier to believe that the disciples followed the final instructions of Messiah, than to believe that they immediately disobeyed His command.
7. The Test of Significance
What significance is mentioned in scripture for baptizing believers in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None. What significance is conveyed toward being baptized in the name of Yehushua? First, scripture teaches that baptism in the name of Yehushua is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Second, baptism in His name alone is associated with the promise of YHWH’s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, baptism in the name of Yehushua is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices or even die with Messiah. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being baptized into Messiah is how we ‘put on’ Messiah (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, baptism in His name is called the “circumcision of Messiah,” and reflects our “putting off” of the man of sin, therefore becoming a “new creature in Yehushua.” (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17).
Baptism in the name of Yehushua expresses faith in the physical life of Yehushua, the crucifixion of the Son of YHWH for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Trinitarian baptism can only express faith in Catholic theology itself.
8. The Test of Parallel Accounts
Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the gospels of the “Great Commission” of the Church. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he wrote of Yehushua speaking in the third person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.” This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Yehushua spoke in the first person, “in my name.” Further, the Gospel of Mark also records another version of the “Great Commission,” using some of the same patterns of speech: “Go ye…all the world…preach the gospel…every creature …baptized…in my name…” (Mark 16:15-18) Of course, it is not baptism that “in my name” refers to here, but rather the works that the disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, the similarity is striking, for neither is baptism explicitly mentioned there, but that disciples should be made, “in my name.”
9. The Test of Complimentary Citation
While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of Trinitarian baptism, there is a striking resemblance between the actual wording of Matthew 28:18-20 and Romans 1:4-5. Matthew contains the Commission of Messiah to His Apostles, while the Romans account is Paul’s acceptance of his own commission as an apostle. Consider the following similarities:
Matthew 28:18-20………………………………….Romans 1:4-5
“all power is given unto Me”……………………“the Son of YHWH with power”
“Go ye” ………………………………………………. “received…apostleship”
“teaching them to observe”………………………“for obedience to the faith”
“all nations”…………………………………………..“all nations”
“in My name”…………………………………………“for His name”
10. The Test of Principle
It is written: “whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Master Yehushua…” (Colossians 3:17). In this principle laid down by Paul, the implication is clear. The word “whatsoever” would of certain necessity include baptism, which is a command involving both word and deed. The traditional wording of Matthew, containing the Trinitarian wording, is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter wording, without the falsified insertion, follows this principle. This establishes which of the two wordings is the contradictory one. YHWH’s Word does not contradict itself; rather it compliments and completes itself. Paul not only expressed this principle, but he applied it specifically to the topic of baptism. In Acts 19:1-6 there is an account concerning the disciples of John who had been baptized under his ministry. Like baptism in Yehushua’ name, John’s baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38). John message, which accompanied his baptism, was that One would come after him, who would “take away the sins of the world” and “baptize with the Holy Spirit.” Paul introduced these disciples to that One, and applied the above principle re-baptized them. “When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Master Yehushua. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them…” And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings in Matthew 28:19, we find very strong support for the phrase “in My name.”
Other Sources
Sufficient evidence has been produced to enable the reader to decide whether or not the Trinitarian wording in Matthew 28:19 is genuine. The following quotations are presented by way of interest, and are not used in the arena of textual criticism thus far employed.
The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 (in the traditional form) represents the exact words of Messiah. – Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Article: Baptism: Early Christian.
The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ we should probably read simply, ‘into my name’. Dr. Peake – Bible Commentary, page 723
There is the “triune” baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but…we leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot find one single instance, in Acts or Epistles, of the words ever being used at any of the main baptisms recorded, notwithstanding Messiah’s (seemingly) explicit command at the end of Matthew’s Gospel. F. Whiteley in The Testimony (Oct. 1959, pg. 351. “Back to Babylon”)
The command to baptize in Matt. 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of YHWH verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Messiah. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggests that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference. Williams R.R. – Theological Workbook of the Bible, page 29
Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name…soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Master Yehushua only. Dean Stanley – “Christian Institutions”
The striking contrast and the illogical internal incoherence of the passage…lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interests of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage. E.K. in the Fraternal Visitor – Article: “The Question of the Trinity and Matt. 28:19.” 1924, pg. 147-151, from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
In his Literal Translation of the Bible, Dr. Robert Young placed the Trinitarian “names” of Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.
The very account which tells us that at last, after His resurrection, He commissioned His disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself.
The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind. James Martineau – Black’s Bible Dictionary, article “Seat of Authority”,
The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Professor Harnack dismissed the text almost contemptuously as being “no word of YHWH’.” Professor Harnack – History of Dogma (German Edition)
Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that the apostles and epistles never once employ the triune name of Matt. 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing the idea of the Trinity was being resisted by the Church in the fourth century, admits (e.g. Peake) ‘the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion’, but still prior to our oldest yet known manuscripts (Fourth Century). It’s sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proven interpolation. Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) denounces the triune form as spurious, Matthew’s actual writing having been baptizing them ‘in my name’. F. Whiteley in The Testimony footnotes to Article: Baptism, 1958.
Should we correct the text of Matthew 28:19? yes
“Jesus is the One on the Throne”
There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: “And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, “I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death.” From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.
There is additional support for this conclusion. Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.
Revelation 22:3-4 speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. These verses speak of one throne, one face, and one name. Therefore, God and the Lamb must be one Being who has one face and one name and who sits on one throne. The only person who is both God and the Lamb is Jesus Christ. In short, the Book of Revelation tells us that when we get to heaven we will see Jesus alone on the throne. Jesus is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see in heaven.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ
The Book of Revelation contains many other powerful statements concerning the deity of Jesus. God’s purpose in having John to write the book was to reveal or unveil Jesus Christ, not merely to reveal future events. In fact, all of John’s writings strongly emphasize the oneness of God, the deity of Christ, and the dual nature of Christ. John wrote the Gospel of John so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31). Accepting Jesus as the Son of God means accepting Him as God, because the title “Son of God” simply means God manifested in the flesh. John identified Jesus as God, the Word, the Father, and Jehovah (the I am). All of John’s writings elevate the deity of Jesus; the Book of Revelation is no exception.
Revelation 1:1 tells us the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Greek for revelation is apokalupsis, from which we get the word apocalypse. It literally means an unveiling or an uncovering. Certainly the book is a prophecy of things to come, but one of the main reasons for this prophecy is to reveal Christ – to show who He really is. The serious Bible student should seek to understand the predictions in the book; but, more importantly, he should seek to understand the reason for these predictions. He should seek to understand the revealing of Jesus Christ in these future events.
The Book of Revelation presents Jesus both in His humanity and in His deity. He is the Lamb slain for our sins but He is also the Almighty God on the throne. Below is a list of some of the ways in which the book presents Christ.
Table 6: Jesus in the Book of Revelation
Title Comment Scripture in Revelation
1 Faithful Witness Prophet and apostle 1:5
2 Firstbegotten of the dead 1:5
3 Prince of kings 1:5
4 Alpha and Omega 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13
5 Beginning and Ending 1:8; 21:6;
6 One which is, was, is to come 1:8; 4:8
7 The Almighty 1:8; 4:8
8 Son of man Same as Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9 1:13
9 First and last 1:17; 22:13
10 He that liveth, was death, is alive for evermore 1:18
11 Possessor of the seven Spirits 3:1; 5:6
12 One on the throne 4:2
13 God 4:8; 21:7
14 Creator 4:11
15 Lion of tribe of Judah Humanity 5:5
16 Root of David David’s creator 5:5; 22:16
17 Lamb Sacrifice for sin 5:6
18 Redeemer 5:9
19 Faithful 19:11
20 True 19:11
21 The Word of God 19:13
22 King of kings 19:16
23 Lord of lords 19:16
24 Offspring of David Humanity 22:16
25 Bright and morning star 22:16
Each of these titles and roles is a beautiful revelation of Jesus. Together, they present a portrait of One who came in flesh, died, and rose again but also One who is the everlasting Lord God Almighty.
The last chapter of Revelation describes God and the Lamb in the singular (Revelation 22:3-4) and identifies the Lord God of the holy prophets as Jesus (Revelation 22:6, 16). These references tell us that Jesus is the God of eternity and that He will appear with His glorified human body (the Lamb) throughout eternity. God’s glory will be the light for the New Jerusalem as it shines through the glorified body of Jesus (Revelation 21:23). These closing chapters of the Book of Revelation describes how God will reveal (unveil) Himself in all His glory to everyone forever. They tell us that Jesus is the everlasting God and that Jesus will reveal Himself as God throughout eternity. Therefore, the book is indeed the revelation of Jesus Christ.
In all the scriptures there is only one true God and Savior. We can see God revealed himself to man in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16) and told us who he was when he was born (Matt. 1:23). Only one is the truth and the light and the way, Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1) and again the Word was made flesh (John 1:14) That flesh was the Messiah the Christ, the eternal God robed in human man to supply the water and blood for the remission of sins for us all. That the spirit of God would be free to dwell with man forever.(Rom.8:9) Jesus said, ”believe that I am he or you will die in your sins” He who? In verse 7 “the Father”. First, we must know who Jesus is then believe on him as his Word says (John 7:38). The Word says to Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission ( or the washing away )of sins, and receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues (1Cor. 14:22, John 3:8, Acts 2:33).Amen….