Matthew 28:19 — The baptismal command: three names, but no word about essence

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Matthew 28:19

Context: The Risen One’s commission

Matthew 28:16-20 is the closing scene of the first Gospel. The eleven disciples go to Galilee, to the mountain “to which Jesus had directed them” (v.16). They see the Risen One, they fall down before him — “but some doubted” (v.17). Christ comes near and speaks the famous word that carries the whole scene: “All authority has been given to me (edothê moi) in heaven and on earth” (v.18). Out of this given, not self-inherent, authority follows the commission of vv.19-20: go, make disciples, baptise, teach.

The opening sentence already settles the reading of the baptismal command. Christ himself is the recipient of his authority. What he immediately commands, he commands as the one to whom something has been transferred by the Father — not as a consubstantial second God. The asymmetry between Father (giver of authority) and Son (recipient of authority) is spoken in the same breath in which the apparently trinitarian baptismal formula follows. Whoever takes v.18 seriously cannot read v.19 in a trinitarian-dogmatic way without bursting the immediate context.

Matthew’s composition is, as usual, careful: the Gospel opens with “Immanuel” — “God with us” (Mt 1:23) — and ends with the promise “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (v.20). The framing is unmistakable in Socinian terms: God with us does not denote the identification of Jesus with God, but the presence of God in Jesus — just as the Risen One is “with you” not because he is God but because as exalted Lord he is at work in the congregation.

The parallel tradition raises questions that must be taken seriously. Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339), who studied the authorship and textual history of the NT more closely than any other Church Father, cites the missionary command eighteen times in the form: “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name” (en tôi onomati mou) — without the trinitarian formula. Later passages in Eusebius know the full formula. The textual criticism of the modern commentaries (Conybeare, Hutchinson; today Ulrich Luz, EKK I/4) discusses in earnest whether the short form was original and the liturgically developed three-part formula was inserted later. The critical edition Nestle-Aland 28 attests the long form in all surviving Greek manuscripts; the argument remains open, but it is not decisive for the theological reading, because even the long form can be read consistently in a Socinian way.

The book of Acts is also revealing: not a single time do the apostles baptise with the trinitarian formula. They baptise “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) or “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” If the formulaic statement of Mt 28:19 were the literally pronounced baptismal formula, the apostles would have used it consistently. They did not. That means: the formula of Mt 28:19 is not in the first place a liturgical baptismal word, but a substantive designation of that to which baptism is related — to the authority of the Father, the mediation of the Son and the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Socinian core thesis

Matthew 28:19 is, in the Socinian scriptural argument, the classical trinitarian-dogmatic proof text — and at the same time the one whose probative force the Polish Brethren contest most sharply. The Racovian Catechism (1605) lists it in its “second argument” against consubstantiality as the first testimony that the opposing party is wont to bring forward. The Polish Brethren’s reply is clear: from the joining of three subjects in a solemn act it cannot be inferred that these three are one single essence of God.

Read in a Socinian way, the baptismal command is an act of sending and of authority. The Father is the one God “into whom” one is baptised, because he is the God of the covenant to whom the baptised entrusts himself. The Son is the Lord and Christ appointed by God (cf. Acts 2:36), “into whom” one is baptised, because his lordship over the baptised begins. The Holy Spirit is the power and the teacher, “into whom” one is baptised, because under his inspiration the covenant is consummated and the gospel is taught. Three subjects are named — but they are named as source, mediator and effect of the one saving action of God.

The preposition eis “into, toward, with regard to” and the phrase eis to onoma “into the name” are formulaic against their Hebrew linguistic background. They denote being given over to a covenant partner or being ordered to an authority — not ontological identification with that authority. Whoever is baptised “into the name of Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16) is assigned to Christ, without thereby a statement being implied about the consubstantiality of Christ with another person. Exactly the same linguistic form applies to Mt 28:19: assignment to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit — not an intra-divine theory of persons.

The consequence is a clear NT christology of mission: the Risen One has received authority (v.18), not authority held from himself. This received authority empowers him to baptise in the name of the Father, that is: at his commission and on his authority. Mt 28:19 is therefore not a trinitarian-dogmatic teaching word, but the closing formula of a structure of sending: received from the Father — transmitted through the Son — made effective in the Spirit. Mark 12:29 and John 17:3 attest the same line: the one God is the Father alone.

Core statement

Key expressions

Five expressions decide the exegesis of Matthew 28:19 in linguistic and philological terms:

edothê moi pâsa exousia — “all authority has been given to me” (v.18)

The passive edothê — a classical passivum divinum — points to God as giver. The Risen One receives his authority; he does not have it from himself. This statement stands immediately before the baptismal command and prejudges its reading: Christ baptises “into his name” and orders the baptism “into the name of the Father and of his own name and of the Holy Spirit,” but he does so as the one appointed by the Father, not as the consubstantial co-ruling Almighty.

The parallel Pauline line confirms this: 1 Cor 15:27 (“he has put all things under his feet”), Phil 2:9 (“God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name”), Eph 1:20-22. Received authority presupposes a giver; the christology of reception is the basic NT structure. A consubstantial-omnipotent second person of the one God would not have to receive its authority — it would have it of itself. Mt 28:18 says the opposite.

eis to onoma — “into the name”

The expression eis to onoma is a Semitic loan expression (Heb. le-shem, Aram. li-shum). In the Talmud and the Mishnah it denotes the orientation of a cultic act to a specific authority, a specific covenant partner, a specific matter of salvation. It is not to be pressed ontologically. Whoever sacrifices “into the name of a deity” assigns the offering to that deity — without thereby making a philosophical statement about essence, substance or person.

In the NT the preposition varies freely between eis, en and epi. Acts 2:38 “in the name of Jesus Christ” (epi tôi onomati), Acts 8:16 “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (eis to onoma), Acts 10:48 “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en tôi onomati). This variability shows: this is not a rigidly magical verbal formula, but a substantive orientation. Mt 28:19 is one such orientation in threefold shape — not the fixing of a trinitarian consubstantiality.

baptizontes ... eis — “baptised into someone / something”

The NT usage is clear. Israelites are “baptised into Moses” (eis ton Môusên, 1 Cor 10:2) — without Moses being God. Some are baptised “into John’s baptism” (eis to Iôannou baptisma, Acts 19:3) — a baptism is not a person, let alone God. Christians are baptised “into the death of Christ” (eis ton thanaton autou, Rom 6:3) — the death is all the less a person.

The Racovian Catechism argues precisely along this line: “We read in the Scriptures that the Israelites were baptised into Moses, some into John’s baptism and the Christians into the death of Christ — although neither is Moses God, nor is John’s baptism, nor is the death of Christ a person, much less God.” This linguistic-statistical finding cuts through the thesis that “baptised into the name of X” means “X is God.”

kai tou hyiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos — “and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

The paratactic series (“and ... and ...”) joins three subjects on equal terms. That is syntactically normal. The question is not whether three subjects are named — that is clear — but whether the series makes a statement about consubstantiality. It does not.

Comparable series in the NT: Acts 20:32 “I commend you to God and to the word of his grace” — the “word of grace” is no person of the divine essence. Eph 6:10 “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might” — the “might” is no person. 1 Sam 12:18 “the people feared the LORD and Samuel,” Ex 14:31 “they believed in the LORD and in Moses his servant” — Moses and Samuel are no second persons of God. Paratactic joining of God with other subjects is biblically normal and carries no ontological consubstantiality.

communicatio fidei vs. communicatio essentiae — joining in faith, not in essence

Scripture frequently knows the joining of persons or things to God in solemn acts of faith, trust, confession. Such a joining is communicatio fidei (community of faith or confession) and not communicatio essentiae (consubstantiality). The baptised entrusts himself to God — that is the main thing. In doing so he also entrusts himself to Christ, because Christ is the Lord appointed by God; and he entrusts himself to the operation of the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit is the power in which God works his salvation.

In trinitarian dogma the communicatio fidei is reinterpreted as an indication of communicatio essentiae. But the leap is methodologically inadmissible: nowhere does Scripture say that confessional inclusion implies consubstantiality — and the parallels mentioned (Moses, Samuel, word of grace, might of strength) tell against the assumption. Whoever argues from Scripture does not get from Mt 28:19 to the doctrine of the Trinity without bringing the doctrine along as a premise.

Comparison of readings

Sozzini in his own words: the Racovian Catechism on Mt 28:19

The Racovian Catechism devotes a thorough section to the question what is to be made, in dogmatic terms, of “those passages in which the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are joined together in a certain manner.” Three passages are discussed: Mt 28:19 as the first, 1 Cor 12:4-6 as the second, and the (text-critically inauthentic) Comma Johanneum (1 Jn 5:7) as the third. Mt 28:19 is treated first and most extensively — which shows the weight the Polish Brethren attach to the verse.

“As regards the first testimony: even though the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are joined together such that we are to be baptised into their names, it can nevertheless not be inferred from this that they are persons in a single divine essence. For it is by no means unusual in Scripture, in divine matters that are no less significant than the institution of baptism, for both persons and things to be joined to God which in no way belong to the essence of God.”

Racovian Catechism, against the trinitarian reading of Mt 28:19 (1605)

The catechism backs this thesis with five OT and NT passages in which the joining of persons or things to God happens without meaning consubstantiality: 1 Sam 12:18 (“the people greatly feared God and Samuel”); Ex 14:31 (“they believed in the LORD and in Moses his servant”); Acts 20:32 (“I commend you to God and to the word of his grace”); Eph 6:10 (“be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might”); Rev 3:12 (names are joined with God and Christ). The hermeneutical result is linguistically and statistically compelling: joining in the act of confession is a form normal in Hebrew and Greek that carries no ontological statement.

To the foreseeable objection — “whoever is baptised in the name of God, his name is eo ipso divine” — the catechism answers with the decisive list of parallels:

“They are gravely mistaken. For we read in the Scriptures that the Israelites were baptised into Moses (1 Cor 10:2), some into John’s baptism (Acts 19:3) and the Christians into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3) — although neither is Moses God, nor is John’s baptism, nor is the death of Christ a person, much less God.”

Racovian Catechism, on the expression “to be baptised into someone”

The argumentative conclusion is modus tollens: if the thesis held (“whoever is baptised into someone is God”), then Moses, John’s baptism and the death of Christ would also be God. They are not. Therefore the thesis does not hold. Mt 28:19 does not bear the load the trinitarian-dogmatic reading wishes to place upon it. The question concerning the essence of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit must be settled elsewhere — and it is settled elsewhere (Mk 13:32; Jn 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5) unambiguously in Socinian terms.

To the third question — why Christ names the Holy Spirit alongside Father and Son if the Holy Spirit is not a person — the catechism gives an equally clear answer:

“The reason is this: Christ joins to the Father and to himself the Holy Spirit as a heavenly teacher and master, by whose inspiration and power the doctrine was to be handed on to the world.”

Racovian Catechism, on the Holy Spirit in the baptismal command

According to this, the Holy Spirit is introduced in Mt 28:19 not as a third person of the Godhead, but as the power and the teacher in whose operation the gospel was to be handed on to the world. The baptised is consequently assigned to the Father (as God of the covenant), to the Son (as appointed Lord) and to the Holy Spirit (as instructing and sanctifying power) — and all of this in one single arc of sending that proceeds from the Father, is mediated through the Son and remains effective in the Holy Spirit.

Overview of Sozzini’s writings

Logical arguments

From Matthew 28:19 the following theological-philological arguments arise against the consubstantial deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

1. Argument from the immediate context (v.18). Immediately before the baptismal command the Risen One declares: “all authority has been given to me.” Received authority presupposes a giver; a consubstantial co-ruling person of the one God would have no authority to receive. The verse itself marks the asymmetry between Father (giver) and Son (recipient), out of which the baptismal command then follows. Whoever sees v.18 cannot read v.19 in a trinitarian-dogmatic way.
2. Argument from apostolic practice. Not a single time do the apostles baptise with the three-membered formula. Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 — always “in the name of Jesus Christ.” If Mt 28:19 were the literally pronounced baptismal formula, the apostles would have used it. They did not, because Mt 28:19 is no liturgical formula but a substantive designation of the structure of sending.
3. Argument from the parallels (1 Cor 10:2; Acts 19:3; Rom 6:3). Baptised into Moses, baptised into John’s baptism, baptised into the death of Christ — in no case does the addressee or the thing become a person of God. The Racovian reasoning is modus tollens: if “baptised into someone” implied ontological divinity, Moses, the baptism and the death of Christ would be God. They are not. So it does not imply this.
4. Argument from confessional joining (1 Sam 12:18; Ex 14:31; Acts 20:32; Eph 6:10). Scripture frequently knows the joining of a created being or a thing with God in solemn acts: “they believed in the LORD and in Moses his servant”; “the people feared God and Samuel”; “I commend you to God and to the word of his grace”; “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.” None of these joinings carries a statement of consubstantiality. The paratactic series in Mt 28:19 is, linguistically, the same pattern.
5. Argument from the Semitic expression le-shem / eis to onoma. The expression is, in rabbinic and NT usage, idiomatic for the orientation of an action to an authority. It is not to be pressed ontologically. Whoever sacrifices, baptises or confesses “into a name” assigns the action — no more and no less. A philosophical statement about essence, substance or person does not lie in the expression.
6. Argument from the variability of the prepositions. NT language varies freely between eis, en and epi in the baptismal word field (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48). This variability excludes a rigidly magical formula. Mt 28:19 is one linguistic form of the matter, alongside others — not the fixed trinitarian word.
7. Argument from the Eusebian short form. Eusebius cites the missionary command, in works written before the Council, eighteen times in the form “make disciples of all nations in my name.” Whether this short form is the original reading remains textually open. Even if one takes the long form Mt 28:19 to be original, the Eusebian reading weakens the claim that the verse was always understood as a dogmatic teaching word.
8. Argument from the structure of sending in NT salvation history. The one God (Father) sends the Son, the Son works in the Spirit; that is the basic NT structure (Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; Acts 2:33). Mt 28:19 mirrors this structure of sending: the baptised is assigned to the Father (as source), to the Son (as mediator) and to the Holy Spirit (as effect). A consubstantial co-ruling theory of persons is neither necessary for this nor attested.
9. Argument from the Holy Spirit as power. In the NT the Holy Spirit is often clearly characterised as power, operation, gift: Lk 24:49 (“power from on high”), Acts 1:8 (“you shall receive power”), Acts 10:38 (“Jesus, whom God anointed with Holy Spirit and power”), Rom 15:13 (“in the power of the Holy Spirit”). Whoever understands the Holy Spirit as power (and not as a third person) reads Mt 28:19 consistently in linguistic terms: the baptised is assigned to the operation of the Spirit by which God brings his salvation to pass.
10. Argument from the hermeneutical priority of the clear. Mk 13:32 (“not even the Son knows the day, but the Father alone”), Jn 17:3 (“you, the only true God, and the one whom you have sent, Jesus Christ”), 1 Cor 8:6 (“one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ”), 1 Tim 2:5 (“one God and one mediator, the man Christ Jesus”) are to be read unambiguously in Socinian terms. Mt 28:19 is paratactic and ambiguous. The clear interprets the ambiguous — not the other way round. Whoever derives the doctrine of the Trinity from Mt 28:19 and thereby reinterprets the clear passages has reversed the hermeneutical order.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages support, deepen or illuminate the Socinian reading of Matthew 28:19:

Objections and Socinian replies

Objection 1: “Three names, one essence — that is the trinitarian formula.”

First: the Greek text speaks of eis to onoma “into the name” (singular!), not of “into the names.” The trinitarian-dogmatic derivation must make a plurality of subjects out of the singular and again a unity of essence out of the plurality of subjects — a dialectical to-and-fro that has no anchorage in the text itself.

Second: the paratactic series “X and Y and Z” carries no ontological statement in Hebrew or Greek. Scripture knows numerous series in which a created being or a thing is named together with God without thereby meaning consubstantiality (1 Sam 12:18; Ex 14:31; Acts 20:32; Eph 6:10). Whoever derives trinitarian consubstantiality from the series of Mt 28:19 would consistently have to hold Samuel, Moses, the word of grace and the might of strength to be divine persons too.

Third: apostolic practice contradicts the reading as a liturgical formula. Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 report numerous baptisms, and in no single case is the three-membered formula used. If the apostles had understood the formula as binding, they would also have spoken it out. They did not — an indication that Mt 28:19 is no rigid verbal formula but a substantive designation of the structure of sending.

Fourth: the immediate context v.18 makes Christ the recipient of his authority. A consubstantial second person of the one God would have no authority to receive. From the verse itself therefore follows an asymmetry that bursts the trinitarian-dogmatic reading of v.19.

Fifth: the church-historical genesis of the doctrine of the Trinity is demonstrably post-apostolic. The doctrine of three consubstantial persons is only fixed dogmatically in the fourth century (Council of Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381). If Mt 28:19 had been understood from the beginning as a trinitarian teaching formula, the centuries-long dogmatic-historical dispute would not have been necessary.

Objection 2: “But joining with God in cultic acts is something other than joining with Moses or with the word.”

The distinction “cultic / non-cultic” is a later narrowing. Exodus 14:31 speaks of an expressly religious act of faith (“they believed in the LORD and in Moses”); 1 Sam 12:18 speaks of a fear of God (“the people greatly feared God and Samuel”). Both are religious, even cultic processes. Whoever wishes to draw a dividing line here between a “merely political” and a “properly cultic” joining projects a modern category distinction into the text which the text itself does not make.

Second: apostolic practice baptises “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Christ in these passages is a single subject, not a three-membered divine essence. If cultic joining implied the consubstantiality of “every co-venerated name” with God, the non-trinitarian baptising “into Jesus’ name” would already have to carry an ontological statement. The orthodox reading decides inconsistently here: Mt 28:19 is evaluated ontologically, Acts 2:38 is not.

Third: the Racovian Catechism argues with the parallel construction expressly against this objection. Moses, John’s baptism and the death of Christ are joined in the NT with the same prepositional constructions as the three-membered name. The construction “baptised into someone / something” is in no single case an ontological statement of essence. If the same construction were ontologically pressable at one passage (Mt 28:19), one would have to give a reason why the construction is not so pressable at the other passages — and this reason would in turn not follow from the construction.

Fourth: early Jewish-rabbinic language frequently knows the joining of person and thing with God in solemn acts. In the Mishnah tractate Berachot the Berachah formula is often so shaped that, alongside the name of God, a saving matter or a second subject is named, without thereby a statement of essence being made. Mt 28:19 is exactly at home in this Hebrew-Aramaic linguistic environment.

Fifth: the hermeneutical point is not that the joining were insignificant, but that it carries no ontological statement. Moses is not God, but he is the great servant of YHWH through whom YHWH leads his people. Christ is not God in the consubstantial sense, but he is the great appointed Lord and Christ through whom God brings about his saving lordship. The joining expresses this relation of mediation — not a doctrine of substance.

Objection 3: “The Holy Spirit is a person — otherwise he could not be joined paratactically with Father and Son.”

First: the argument is linguistically false. Acts 20:32 places the “word of grace” in a paratactic series with God (“I commend you to God and to the word of his grace”). The “word of grace” is, as expressly stated, no person. Eph 6:10 places “the strength of his might” in a paratactic series with “the Lord” (“be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might”). “The might” too is no person. The thesis “series in a solemn act = personhood” is therefore empirically refuted.

Second: in the NT the Holy Spirit is often clearly characterised as power, operation, gift. Lk 24:49 (“power from on high”), Acts 1:8 (“you shall receive power”), Acts 10:38 (“anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power”), Rom 15:13 (“in the power of the Holy Spirit”). The linguistic and statistical preponderance of power-statements is undeniable; the personalistic statements are mostly personifications, comparable to the OT personifications of Wisdom (Prov 8) or of the Torah (Sir 24).

Third: the Racovian Catechism gives the direct answer: “The Holy Spirit is the power of God, through whose communication all this happens.” Christ joins the Holy Spirit to the Father and to himself as a “heavenly teacher and master,” by whose inspiration and power the doctrine was to be handed on to the world. That is a scripturally close, linguistically consistent, dogmatically sparing exegesis.

Fourth: the personalistic reading of the Holy Spirit as “third person” was only fixed dogmatically in the fourth century (Constantinople 381 against the Pneumatomachoi). Early Christian language speaks throughout of “Spirit and power,” “Spirit and gift,” “inspiration and power.” Personalistic language is a post-NT development, not a NT given.

Fifth: the whole trinitarian-dogmatic construction of a “third person” with its own relations, its own properties, its own consubstantiality is an attempt to harmonise the personalistic language of the NT (which a few passages do know) with the presupposed consubstantiality. In Socinian terms the simpler reading is to be preferred: the Holy Spirit is the power and operation of God by which God carries out his saving action. Mt 28:19 is fully compatible with this reading.

Objection 4: “The Didache (ch. 7) requires the three-membered baptismal formula — that is old Christian practice.”

The dating of the Didache is disputed (early 2nd century to late 1st century). In any case it is later than the book of Acts, which throughout attests the simple form “in the name of Jesus Christ.” The Didache is therefore a witness to an early liturgical development, in which the three-membered formula becomes established alongside the simple form. It is not a witness to the original NT practice.

Second: even if the three-membered formula became old-church liturgy, it does not follow that it was understood as a trinitarian-dogmatic word of essence. The dogmatic exegesis as “three consubstantial persons of one single substance” is a later development, fixed dogmatically only in the 4th century. The old liturgy can very well have understood the formula in the Socinian sense as a structure of sending (Father — Son — Spirit as source, mediator, effect).

Third: the fact that already early on two baptismal practices stand side by side (the apostolic one in the name of Jesus Christ and the liturgically developed three-membered one) shows that neither the one nor the other form was understood as alone binding. The practice was flexible; the theological exegesis was not from the beginning fixed in trinitarian-dogmatic terms.

Fourth: the argument from liturgical consensus is an argumentum ad antiquitatem. It does not replace the scriptural argument. Even if the old-church liturgy had favoured a particular exegesis, it would not thereby be settled whether Scripture itself bears this exegesis. The Socinian examination of Scripture upon its wording (the sola scriptura principle) has methodological priority.

Objection 5: “Whoever denies the Trinity cannot be baptised into the ‘one name.’”

The singular to onoma is not to be pressed semantically in this way. Onoma in Hebrew-Greek usage means not the ontological essence, but the renown, the authority, the identity of a person or a thing. “Into the name” is a fixed expression that need not be reconstructed in every individual case with a genitive plurality. Compare the Hebrew expression le-shem YHWH: a temple, an altar, a calling “into the name of YHWH” — and in none of these passages is an ontological statement of essence inferred from the singular.

Second: the Racovian Catechism shows that even the joining of several subjects to God in a solemn act does not imply ontological consubstantiality. Exodus 14:31 says “they believed in the LORD and in Moses his servant” — and even here no exegete would dare to derive the ontological divinity of Moses from the act of faith. Whoever wants to read Mt 28:19 ontologically must give a reason why the same linguistic structure should be read differently there.

Third: Socinian baptismal theology is no less serious than the trinitarian. The baptised are pledged to the one God (Father) as source, to the appointed Lord (Son) as mediator and to the Holy Spirit (power) as effective presence of God. That is the full NT theology of salvation — without the post-NT step to the doctrine of consubstantiality. Mt 28:19 is fully compatible with this exegesis.

Fourth: the thesis “whoever denies the Trinity cannot baptise Christianly” is a church-historically contingent doctrinal statement, not a NT given. The apostles did not baptise in trinitarian-dogmatic terms but “in the name of Jesus Christ.” If the thesis held, the apostles themselves would not have been Christian baptisers. That would be a reductio ad absurdum of the whole reading.

Fifth: the historical reality of biblical-unitarian movements — the Polish Brethren, later unitarian-Christian churches — refutes the thesis in practice. These Christians have baptised, felt the operation of the Holy Spirit, grown in the following of Christ. The asserted trinitarian-dogmatic necessity of the validity of baptism is a confessional-juridical doctrine, not a NT condition.

Theological consequences

Related verses

The following passages support, deepen or contrast the exegesis here put forward:

• Mark 12:29 — Shema Israel: Jesus confesses the one God and does not include himself in this one God.
• John 17:3 — The Father, alone the true God: the same exclusive assignment of subject as in Mt 28:18 (received authority).
• Mark 13:32 — Not even the Son knows the day, but the Father alone: a harsh asymmetry of knowledge between Father and Son.
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 — One God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ): a prepositionally sharp separation of source and mediation.
• 1 Timothy 2:5 — One God and one mediator, the man Christ Jesus.
• John 20:17 — Christ goes to “his God”; whoever has a God is not himself that God.
• Acts 2:36 — God has made him Lord and Christ: the NT christology of appointment.
• Luke 1:35 — The Holy Spirit as power of the Most High that becomes effective.

Summary

Matthew 28:19 names three subjects in a solemn baptismal directive: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The paratactic linking in a confessional joining is linguistically normal in Hebrew and Greek and carries no ontological statement of essence. This can be shown from parallels in which the joining of a created being or a thing with God happens without meaning consubstantiality (1 Sam 12:18; Ex 14:31; Acts 20:32; Eph 6:10).

The Racovian Catechism (1605) brings the Socinian argument to its shortest form: “We read in the Scriptures that the Israelites were baptised into Moses, some into John’s baptism and the Christians into the death of Christ — although neither is Moses God, nor is John’s baptism, nor is the death of Christ a person, much less God.” Whoever infers from “baptised into the name of X” the divinity of X must include the divinity of Moses, of John’s baptism and of the death of Christ. No one does this. So the construction does not carry the asserted load even in Mt 28:19.

In Socinian terms Matthew 28:19 is therefore no trinitarian teaching formula, but the command of sending and of authority of the Risen One, to whom the Father has “given all authority” (v.18). Three subjects are named — but they are named as source (Father), mediator (Son) and effect (Holy Spirit) of the one saving action of God. The baptised is placed into this structure of sending: into the covenantal relationship to the one God, under the lordship of the appointed Lord, into the power of the effecting Spirit. Consubstantiality of three persons is neither necessary for this nor attested in the NT.