Full Question
In his book, "The Gospel in the Early Church," Dr. James Mackinnon, Ph.D., D.D., D.Th., LL.D., Regius Professor Emeritus of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Edinburgh makes the following statement :—
"Jesus, indeed, whilst submitting himself to baptism, had not practised this rite, and the parting injunction to his disciples in Matthew's Gospel to baptize in the triune name is not authentic."
I shall be glad to have your views on this statement. Can we place Matt. 28. 19 alongside 1 John 5. 7, as uncanonical?
Answer
A consultation of available references, such as the modern translation of Moffatt and Weymouth, the Revised Version and Dr. Adam Clarke’s commentary, gave no indication that the authenticity of the passage was ever in doubt.
The custodian at the Edinburgh Reference Library kindly looked up a number of authorities and found that they used the passage as proof that Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize their converts without the slightest suggestion that it was unauthentic.
The problem was, therefore, placed before Prof. Mackinnon, and in two courteous letters he explained the reason for the statement made in his book. In essence it amounts to this. The doctrine of the Trinity was not known in the early Church until at least the middle of the second century; Matt. 28. 19, has an obvious trinitarian bias ; therefore, it could not have been written in the first century by Matthew, and consequently cannot be regarded as an authentic statement.
The reason given is thus not the result of textual research and discovery, but of a process of thought in the mind of the Professor. The result of this process is opposed to the work of textual translators, both old and new, and therefore we are predisposed to doubt its accuracy. The logic seems to be irresistible, but the conclusion depends for its accuracy upon the truth of the statements on which it is based.
The first is a statement of historical fact, and its truth is unquestioned; but the second statement is not so certain. The “trinitarian bias” in Matt. 28. 19 is only suggested because the doctrine of the Trinity exists, and causes those who believe in it to assume that the association of the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, involves the idea of co-equality and co-eternity between them.
Had it not been for the apostasy developing in the Church, the doctrine of the Trinity would not have arisen; but Matt. 28. 19 would still be valid as a recognition of the operation, for the salvation of believers, of the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
Prof. Mackinnon’s opinion does not destroy the authenticity of Christ’s instruction to his disciples.
“The Valley of the Shadow”