Image

Monthly Archives: June 2022

The Trinitarian Ending

At the very end of Matthew’s Gospel, he gives us the words of the Master, what is usually called the Great Commission:

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” – Matthew 28:18-20.

As I noted in my post on the Ascension of the Lord, this passage harks back to Matthew 24:14. When Jesus spoke to them at that point, everything he was telling them was prophecy. By Matthew 28, he lets them know that they are living in the very fulfillment of that prophecy, which means that this moment in Matthew is truly the very beginning of the beginning of the end. From this point, they can expect to see many of the other things from Matthew 24 begin to come to pass, much of it in that generation.

What makes this passage from the twenty-eighth chapter of particular interest is the mention of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as part of what would become the standard formula for Christian baptism. F.C. Conybeare at the beginning of the 20th century offered up the possibility that the Trinitarian formula was a later addition to the Gospel, just as Mark’s Gospel had had various endings added onto it. This was in spite of the fact that the earliest copies of Matthew that included chapter 28 never failed to mention it.

Conybeare offered up the Theophania by Eusebius of Caesarea (written A.D. 324 – 337) as possible proof that Eusebius was familiar with an older version of Matthew that had an ending more in line with Luke’s Gospel and the early teaching in Acts, which stressed baptism in the name of Jesus. Eusebius wrote:

“‘Go and make Disciples of all nations in my name.’ And, when He had said this to them, He attached to it the promise, by which they should be so encouraged, as readily to give themselves up to the things commanded. For He said to them, ‘Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.’ It is stated, moreover, that He breathed into them the Holy Ghost with the Divine power; (thus) giving them the power to work miracles, saying at one time, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost” and at another, commanding them, to ‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out Demons:—freely ye have received, freely give.’” Eusebius, Theophania, V.49

In this passage and others, while Eusebius is indeed stressing the power and the authority of the name of Jesus, he clearly isn’t always quoting passages of Scripture verbatim – or in any linear way. In this short paragraph alone, he begins by combining Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47, he quotes Matthew 28:20, John 20:22, and then he ends it by quoting Matthew 10:8. While he may have been familiar with a copy of Matthew that used a shorter baptismal formula, it’s also possible that he was simply combining Matthew and Luke in a few instances.

There’s no real evidence that the Trinitarian ending of Matthew was added after Nicea, and much evidence that believers were familiar with it – or at least the apostolic tradition behind it – from the earliest decades of the Christian era. While exactly what Jesus might have meant by that phrase would be the stuff driving Church Councils for centuries, the Trinitarian formula itself was a solid part of the deposit of faith.

Fortunately, the Great Commission is not the only place that we encounter the Trinity in Matthew’s Gospel. As Matthew is wont to do, he plants seeds in one chapter and that spring up in another. In chapter three, he writes:

“And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’” – Matthew 3:16

The mission of Jesus begins with his baptism and the voice of God, self-identifying as the Father of the Son, with the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. The continuing mission of Jesus after the resurrection contains the command to teach and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. The promise is that Christ’s presence with his people will continue until the end of the age.

As clearly defined Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are lively and closely aligned in the Gospel of Matthew. God is referred to as “Father” in Matthew some forty-five times, according to F.W. Beare – a massive change from the Old Testament usage. Even moreso than in the other Gospels, in Matthew “the Father” is God’s central identity. Although Matthew only mentions the Holy Spirit twelve times, we are given a great deal of information about him. The Spirit is the one who conceives the son of God in time and space within the womb of the Virgin (Matt. 1:18). He is the one who comes upon (Matt. 3:16), empowers (Matt. 12:28) and directs (Matt. 4:1) Jesus during his life on earth. For John the Baptist, the presence of the Holy Spirit is an identifier of the true Messiah (Matt. 3:11), and in the lives of the disciples, the Spirit is the giver of inspiration and holy wisdom (Matt. 10:20). The Holy Spirit also appears to be the most tender member of the Holy Trinity, because purposely calling him unholy is the one sin that cannot be forgiven (Matt. 12:32). Thus, we not only find the Holy Trinity at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus and at the end, but all throughout.

The earliest document outside of the New Testament to use the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28 for baptism is the Didache, an ancient church manual written between A.D. 50 – 70:

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things (i.e., catechesis), baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit …” Didache, 7.

While St. Clement of Rome doesn’t use the Trinitarian formula for baptism per se, in A.D. 96 he did give a Trinitarian benediction which is likely an allusion to baptism, as an integral part of the faith of true Christians.

“Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live — both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever. Amen.” – St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 58.

Matthew’s baptismal formula is quoted by St. Hippolytus before the year 200:

“The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” – St. Hippolytus of Rome, Against Noetus, 14.

Also writing around the year 200 was Tertullian of Carthage:

“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: Go, He says, teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The comparison with this law of that definition, Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.” Tertullian, On Baptism, 13.

Many other citations could be given, but it should be enough to say that even before the Council of Nicea, the Trinitarian ending of Matthew was commonly known, and not just known, but quoted. As for the possibility that Constantine could have organized a massive, Empire-wide effort to insert the Trinitarian formula into every possible document written or copied within the Church’s first three centuries … if that’s true, then Luke and Acts would not have escaped unscathed, as well as any version of the ending of Mark’s Gospel. It also seems probable, at least to me, that if this had happened, it would have resulted in heavy handed, obvious edits. Indeed, something like that might have occurred if the four Gospels had been discarded for a “harmonized” Gospel – one with all of the various differences ironed out – but thank God that did not happen.

Resources:

Clement of Rome, “First Epistle,” Keith, John, tr., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9, Menzies, Allan, ed., Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896. 

<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm>.

Conybeare, F.C., “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matt. 28:19,”
<https://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Conybeare_1901.pdf>

The Didache,  Riddle, M.B., tr., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James; and Coxe, A. Cleveland, eds., Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm>.

Eusebius of Caesarea, “Theophania,” Early Church Fathers – Additional Texts, Pearse, Roger, ed.. 2002. <https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_theophania_01preface.htm>

Ge, Liangyan. “Father/Father in Matthew.” Paragraph, vol. 15, no. 3, 1992, pp. 261–78. JSTOR, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/43151753>.

Hippolytus, “Against Noetus,” MacMahon, J.H., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James; and Coxe, A. Cleveland, eds., Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm>.

Tertullian, “On Baptism,” Thelwall, S., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James; and Coxe, A. Cleveland, eds., Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm>.

20 June 2022

email

Ascension

Matthew’s Gospel, unlike Luke, the book of Acts, and a brief mention tagged onto the end of Mark’s Gospel, does not give us an account of Christ’s ascension to the right hand of the Father. Why Matthew and John chose not to include the kind of detailed account that Luke did is unknown, but that does not mean that the communities that embraced Matthew and John were unaware of the ascension of Jesus into Heaven. The ascension, specifically the return of Jesus to the right hand of the Father, is an expectation woven into the fabric of the Gospels, even if it is not stated explicitly.

In Matthew, it is inferred that Jesus is going to be leaving in some fashion. Oddly enough, it is the disciples of Jesus who bring this up in Matthew 24:3, when Jesus mentions the destruction of the temple. “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Already, they seem to understand, vaguely, that the Jesus they are familiar with will leave, and that at some point he will return in a strange, apocalyptic manner. While Jesus has tried to make the unfolding plan of his death and resurrection clear to them (Matt. 16:21), they hardly understand what he has told them. Yet, they know, somehow, that the mission of Jesus will have two definite phases. Between the ministry of Jesus the itinerant preacher from Galilee and the reign of Jesus the Lord of Heaven and earth there would be a necessary physical absence.

In response to their question, Jesus tells them that many terrible, frightening things will occur, and that false prophets will come in his name, proclaiming that they are the Messiah. He warns the disciples not to be fooled by these people. The historian Josephus recorded how Antonius Felix, the procurator of Judea, dealt with such false prophets in the late 50s of the first century, during the time of St. Paul. This is worth quoting at length:

“And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.” – Josephus, Antiquities, XX.8.6

It was at this time, some ten to fifteen years before the destruction of the temple, that the prophetic words of Jesus began to overlap with the historical events which led up to that terrible moment. The author of the Gospel, seeing these things, no doubt remembered the words of his Master, and saw them graphically unfold as time passed. This is important to understand. The Gospels were written in the rearview mirror, so to speak. None of these prophecies were written down by Jesus at the time, and when the Gospel tradition finally did reach the written page, it was some 30 – 50 years later. What we have before us is a memory of Jesus that becomes more meaningful as time passes. There were things that Jesus said that made little sense when the disciples first heard them. After the resurrection, many, many things the Master had said began to pull together in their understanding. As John 2:22 states, “After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this …” In the same way, Jesus’ apocalyptic discourses would have made little sense until they actually began to come to pass. They could be described more accurately because they were finally understood with more clarity. Understanding the passage in this way gives the Gospel writer the benefit of the doubt. This is a reasonable way a disciple would look back on his time with the Master. While the description of the destruction of the temple is sketchy in a visionary sort of way that reaches back to Daniel, the description of the tumult and anarchy at the end of the age fits the 50s of the first century perfectly.

After describing times of great sorrow, Jesus gives his people hope. “And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matt. 24:14). This verse is echoed at the end of the Gospel of Matthew in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:19-20). Even in his physical absence, which is assumed here at the close of the book, he promises to always be with his people.

In the hymn that St. Paul gives us in Philippians 2, we find something that that may find its origins in the earliest days of the Jesus movement – long before the Gospels and possibly even Paul’s own epistles. Here, the ascension is described as an exaltation (Phil. 2:9), as Jesus the servant returns to his proper place in Heaven as Lord, to the glory of God the Father. “Ascension as exaltation” is a concept that Matthew would have found entirely appropriate.

In the Old Testament, people were assumed into Heaven only a few times (Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11). Almost as rare, they were brought back to life after death, and only then through the agency of a prophet or even a prophet’s body (1 Kings 1:17-34, 2 Kings 4:32-37, 2 Kings 13:21). The kind of resurrection, total transformation, and ascension that is spoken of in the Gospels is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. The message is clear: the Gospels speak of something wholly Other.

Titus Livius, an early historian who died when Jesus was a teen, told the legend of Romulus, the first king of Rome, and how he had been assumed into heaven, accompanied by lightning and great peals of thunder. He also described how the king descended from heaven in glory to visit a friend, before making a speech about Rome’s might and vanishing into the clouds (Livy, Rome, I.17). Plutarch, the Roman biographer in the first century, told various stories regarding those whose bodies had vanished after their deaths or who, as in the case of Romulus, had been taken up into heaven in a whirlwind (Plutarch, Romulus, 27, 28). When comparing these legends to the Gospel accounts, we realize, first of all, that the stories Livius and Plutarch told took place in what, to them, was the mythic past – some eight centuries earlier. By contrast, the Gospel accounts are drawing off of a recent Event. The Roman legends contain no trace of a resurrection account – in the case of Romulus, he is simply glorified and taken to the realm of the gods. The Roman legends are a full special effects light and sound extravaganza. The resurrection was witnessed by no one – there is not one soul who saw Jesus walk out of the tomb. Far from being extravagant, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are quiet and almost anonymous. When he returns to the Father, there is no whirlwind. There is only the promise of his abiding presence.

Resources:

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston, William, tr., London, 1737.<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm>

Plutarch, “The Life of Romulus,” The Parallel Lives, Perrin, Bernadotte, tr., Loeb Classical Library, 1914. <https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Romulus*.html>

Titus Livius, The History of Rome, Spillan, D., tr., Henry G. Bohn, 1853.<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19725/19725-h/19725-h.htm>
06 June 2022

email