7

If written out in full would this verse read "in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit"? Or is there some other reason apart from trimming obviously implied words that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit [clearly 3 names] are said to have one name?

2

10 Answers 10

14

Wallace offers a very good explanation of the use of the term in the original language. It may help to understand exactly what is meant by the term

εἰς τὸ ὄνομα - into the name of.

I am not going to try to quote Wallace. I will just give the sense of his explanation. In the classical style of the first century language, the phrase "εἰς τὸ ὄνομα" - "into the name of" was often used as a legal term. This expression is found among ancient legal documents that recorded the transfer of property. If one purchased a section of land or a dwelling for example, a title transfer would be drawn up to show that this property was now εἰς τὸ ὄνομα - in the name of - the new owner.

When Jesus commanded his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature and "baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit," he was commanding them to baptize them into the possession of God. Christians are thus the objects of a property transfer - "out of the kingdom of darkness and into his marvelous light." Baptism then is a property transfer. This same language is used in Acts 2:38 when Peter commanded those present to be baptized ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι - into the name of - thus into the possession of Jesus Christ. This was for a two-fold purpose 1. For the removal of sin - Spiritual circumcision, Colossians 2:9-13. 2. To receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. He is the seal of the transfer of property, Ephesians 4:30, 1Corinthians 6:19-20. He is the seal of ownership to show that we have been bought with a price.

4
  • Good answer. I would have quoted Wallace, myself. He is an excellent reference and highly respected. You may like to consider using paragraphs to separate the points of your argument. It prevents the eye being assailed with what is called 'a wall of text'. +1 and welcome.
    – Nigel J
    Apr 23, 2019 at 5:05
  • I have edited only to show you how a quotation is displayed. Please feel free to roll back the edit, if you wish.
    – Nigel J
    Apr 23, 2019 at 5:15
  • 1
    I wasn't able to find anything in Wallace about this, especially not in his Grammar. I did find this idea in M&M and BDAG, along with another potential sense that is likely how a Semitic reader understood it. See my answer which lays out these various senses of how this phrase was likely understood.
    – Dan
    Sep 26, 2020 at 5:24
  • 1
    This answer also syncs up quite well with Robert C. Tannehill's thesis in "Dying and Rising with Christ". In that book Tannehill makes the case that Romans 6 uses the metaphor of Baptism to symbolize a transfer from one dominion to another. In other words, to borrow the words of oldhermit, "Baptism then is [symbolic of] a property transfer." Apr 17 at 15:28
3

It is a formula that asserts equal divine status of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, for the "name" here denotes the very reality of Divinity, for only God saves and this salvation is accessed through the baptism (Mark 16:16) which is in the Name of the mentioned Three.

That the Name of God applies to the Lord Jesus Christ is clearly seen in a number of other passages, for instance, when He is accused calumniously that He expels demons in the name of Beelzebub, the head of demons, He defends Himself by saying that His disciples expel demons in His name (Matthew 12:27; Luke 10:17). Now, demons can be expelled only in the name, that is to say, by the action of God, so when Christ teaches His disciples that His name alone is enough to expel demons, so that they have not to invoke Father, but the Son, i.e. Christ alone, that means that the Father and the Son have one Name in the sense of Them being both God, and in the action of the Son there is necessarily the simultaneous action of the Father also for it is an ontological impossibility for Them to act separately (cf. John 5:17).

And the Spirit is also called "God" having a full share in the same Name (cf. Acts 5:3-4).

Thus, as well discerned by traditional theology of the fathers, the likes of St. John Chysostomos, the "Name" in this passage is in singular because it likewise applies to all Three - the Father, the Son and the H. Spirit, affirming Their Godhead.

2

A Baptismal Formula
Since the phrase seems odd, some have questioned its authenticity as discussed here: Was the text of Matthew 28:19 changed?. This answer presents the evidence this text is original:

πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [GNT]

Thus the OP's reading: "If written out in full would this verse read 'in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit'" is incorrect. It should be:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [ESV]

[a] Matthew 28:19 Or into

The phrase may be confusing, because one expects either 3 names, or names plural, not name singular as in the actual text. But as the NET Bible notes, the intent is obvious (my emphasis added):

tc Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163-64, 167-75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27-29.1

This is the Christian's trinitarian baptismal "formula," as Joseph Benson explains in his commentary:

Words which have been considered, in all ages of the Christian Church, as a most decisive proof of the doctrine of the Trinity; implying not only the proper personality and Deity of the Father, but also those of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For it would be absurd to suppose that either a mere creature, or a mere quality, or mode of existence of the Deity, should be joined with the Father in the one name into which all Christians are baptized. “To be baptized into the name of any one implies a professed dependance on him, and devoted subjection to him; to be baptized, therefore, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, implies a professed dependance on these three divine persons, jointly and equally, and a devoting of ourselves to them as worshippers and servants. This is proper and obvious, upon the supposition of the mysterious unity of three coequal persons in the unity of the Godhead; but not to be accounted for upon any other principles.” — Scott.

This idea of belonging to and becoming part of is also explained in Old Hermit's answer.

Also, it is incorrect to assume the terms τοῦ πατρὸς, τοῦ υἱοῦ, and τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος are themselves names. They are titles or positions. By way of comparison, consider "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" which speaks of a singular God for three named individuals. This could also be stated as "The God of Sarah's husband, Rebekah's husband, and Leah's husband." Both phrases convey the same meaning.

Examples
Paul uses the baptismal formula when recalling the Exodus:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-2)

Matthew      baptize  into [the name]  εἰς τὸ  ὄνομα
Corinthians  baptized into    Moses    εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν

When the baptism is recorded, "Moses" is inserted, Thus in the instruction, "ὄνομα" functions like a "placeholder" to be filled by the specific name.

We can use a hypothetical example to illustrate how a singular name would be used for a three-fold entity. Suppose Jesus had said "Go therefore and make disciples of all Gentiles, baptizing them in the name of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." This instruction would be understood in terms of bringing Gentiles into Judaism by baptism (not circumcision) using the proscribed baptismal formula. That is, Jesus replaced a male only ritual with one which all people must undergo.

If we read that the Apostles went to the Gentiles, preached Jesus, and taught them to observe all that Jesus had commanded (Matthew 28:20), we would also expect to learn they baptized those who accepted. If we read, "So they were baptized into the name of Israel" we would know the Apostles understood the name of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is Israel. The baptism into a singular name brought them into the three-fold entity.

In reality, Jesus did not give an instruction to bring Gentiles into the Jewish faith, but to make children of God by believing in His Name (John 1:12):

Baptismal Formula                                                            Name
Example: Baptize into the name of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob                      Israel
Actual: Baptize into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit    Jesus

Notes:
1. NET Bible

2

Grammatically it is natural to view the prepositional phrase “in the name” as being “applied” to all three terms independently.

This could be an example of the adjunctive και or of ellipsis, or both. The adjunctive και lends itself to ellipsis and also serves to reduce repetition.

This would result in:

In the name of [εἰς τὸ ὄνομα] the Father and [in the name of] the Son and [in the name of] the Holy Spirit. (NA28) εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

2

While it may be somewhat impossible to prove that Matthew 28:19 was changed to support the trinity (which is not a Biblical word or doctrine), the question that must be asked for this doctrine and any other doctrine is: is it truth? As the Bible states many times (I believe it is 7 times total), "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Corinthians 13:1). One verse cannot be sufficient then for an entire doctrine.

  • "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). It is interesting that Erasmus's first and second editions did not contain this (what is known as the Comma Johanneum). Luther's Bible came from the second edition and does not contain the Comma. This Trinitarian formula was added in his third edition likely due to pressure from the Catholic Church.
  • Consider that in 311 AD, Eusebius finished "The Proof of the Gospels", in which he gives statements such as, “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, p. 152) several times. Eusebius was present at the Council of Nicea, which did not convene until 325 AD. It would appear that Eusebius did not have a manuscript containing this Trinitarian version of Matthew 28:19, and that it became an agenda at the council that has been pushed since then.
  • The next verse typically mentioned is, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen" (2 Corinthians 13:14). However, if one reads this Scripture exegetically, one would have to admit it only affirms the existence of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. There is no implication of them being co-eternal, which is a definable characteristic of the trinity according to the Nicene Creed.

If Matthew 28:19 was not changed, it makes the following verse fairly contradictory.

Acts 1:5

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:12

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:16

(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:13-15

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Galatians 3:27

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

If Jesus commanded them to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," why did they only baptize in the name of Jesus? It is by Jesus, "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Peter 2:24). "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Therefore, it is by His name only that we receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

1
  • Good answer. And in the name of holy spirit which incidentally has no name so that makes little sense. +1
    – Steve
    Nov 26, 2022 at 1:16
1

The answer as to the one name of Matthew 28:19, I believe is seen best in the statement made in

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: to and these three are one.

Yet if the originality of this text is in question as well, consider this most ancient context as conjuncted in John 1:1-14 as One name 3 functionaries, this can well be extracted from

Gen 1: 1-4

*1. In the beginning God... 
2. And the Spirit of God moved...
3. And God said, Let there be...*

In the most ancient concept of Biblical writ we can see: God, His Spirit and His word which 'said...' , And in Genesis 2:4 the concept of YHWH / יהוה comes into being as derived from the concept of היה or הוה "was, and/or being" the name by which the Word speaks of him self as God and With God as moving by the spirit "... YHWH God made the earth and the heavens...".

This well represented in:

Psalm 33: 6 By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the spirit of his mouth.


The concept is literally seen when one speaks, you may see 'them' open their mouth but logic is being expressed by the breath or spirit (moving of void or air) which produces word.

I am not horribly fond of the term "Trinity", nevertheless this is an inescapable fact of scripture, that The Father by His spirit-breath speaks his Word to bring forth what has been preposed, and the Apostles and prophets bring it forth often in their expressions Mathew 28:19 is no exception, even if one would take the Majority Text approach in denial of it's originality to Mathew and only a Byzantium commentary, what damage does it do? None, if the sum of scripture proclaims the same message.

--

Therefore, if the book of Acts and other sittings say as in [Act 10:48 NASB] (48) And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ... Is it not confirming that within that name of " Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father, Son And Spirit in the immersive work of Faith as commanded to be done in Baptism? Yes, there is no place in Scripture where the Son is mentioned without the Father's authority, and none where the Son speaks that is not by the Spirit.


I think is best said in 2Co 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:

[2Co 5:18-19 ESV] (18) All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; (19) that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

5
  • a potentially good post spoilt by the inclusion of that which is not scripture 1 J 5:7 but a corruption of God's word - among others, this perhaps being the chief.
    – Steve
    Jul 27, 2020 at 2:41
  • Regardless of your thoughts on the Johannine comma, you may still utilize the same information by disregarding 1 John 5:7 as scripture. Nevertheless, what the comma says is biblically true else where in scripture. Thanks
    – Lowther
    Jul 28, 2020 at 3:27
  • no, it absolutely isn't - that's the point of including it. Of course, people can 'read in' whatever they like - but it isn't biblical. Traditional teaching is based on stuff admitted to be 'extra-biblical'. Sorry, I just prefer to stick to the testimony and revelation God and Jesus have provided in abundance - either personally or through authorised (canonised) teachers.
    – Steve
    Jul 28, 2020 at 3:51
  • Can you provide what 'stuff' you are talking about? If you read the post, it states the potential non-originality of said text in the statement it self. The post was not based on the comma, but on an overview of the concept.
    – Lowther
    Aug 30, 2020 at 2:04
  • We have a God who, as you've expressed, is somewhat 'triune' in manner - but not in nature. He speaks, He sends His spirit, and He IS. Anything that ascribes personality to the word or the spirit is extra-biblical. The word of God became flesh 2000 yrs ago and is now a person with a name - the 'Word of God' Rev 19:13, the logos had no name nor does the spirit - they were and are an expression OF the one God, known variously including the title Father.
    – Steve
    Aug 30, 2020 at 3:53
1

As everyone knows, "Father" is not a name. Our fathers have a name, and "father" is not it. Neither is "son" a name. Nor is "spirit." These are titles, not names. The question incorrectly supposes these to be names, as if we knew better than Jesus' own disciples what he was instructing. They understood Jesus' command, and knew by what name he was commanding them to baptize.

As Acts 4:12 plainly states:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12, KJV)

And what name was that? Two verses prior is where the name is plainly specified.

be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole. (Acts 4:10, KJV)

The question might be asked, "What is the Father's name?" And Jesus answered that for us.

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. (John 5:43, KJV)

Jesus shared the name of the Father. They have the same name. And in the name of "Jesus Christ," the disciples consistently baptized. Never once in any recorded baptism in the Bible, is the Father's title even mentioned.

Reference Baptismal Texts Relative to the Name (KJV)
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Conclusion

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three titles for the same name. The word "name" is singular in Greek for a reason--because there is only one name by which we are saved. That name is that of Jesus Christ our Lord.

8
  • not sure you executed this right yet. Or you need to clarify what you intend by, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three titles for the same name. Jesus' name does not include Father in this context, though of course he represents the Father in everything.
    – Steve
    Nov 26, 2022 at 5:26
  • @steveowen If Jesus' name does not include the Father, then the disciples failed to follow the directions given them in the last words they were to hear personally from Jesus' lips. If "Jesus" is not the name of the Father, what is His name?
    – Biblasia
    Nov 26, 2022 at 5:41
  • His name is Jesus, the Father's is Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh. He operates under the authority of Yahweh symbolised by, 'in the name of'. Just as we operate and exercise power 'in the name of' Jesus.
    – Steve
    Nov 26, 2022 at 6:11
  • @steveowen Yahweh is not a Greek word, and is not in the New Testament. Neither is Jesus a Hebrew word, nor in the Old Testament. What, then, is the Father's New Testament (Greek) name? Surely, if Jesus were asking the disciples to baptize in the Father's name, they would know it--in their own language, wouldn't they? Why would this crucial detail be omitted? (Of course, it wasn't--Jesus told us that the Father had given him His name.) There is only one name that saves us: Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12). But God (the Father) is also called our Savior--see Jude 25.
    – Biblasia
    Nov 26, 2022 at 7:38
  • Yes of course God is savior as He alone is responsible for salvation and He has appointed a son to do the saving through his blood. Does God have blood? There is a reason why the name Yahweh is no longer used by the 'Israelites'. Again, of course, Jesus was not IN the OT except in prophecy - to be perfectly clear.
    – Steve
    Nov 26, 2022 at 7:44
0

As to @Steveowens assumption that Jesus is not the name of the Father:

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Bold added for emphasis.)

Isaiah 63:16

the prophet speaking to God, "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."

John 10:27-30 (KJV)

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

Also, as to the co-equality of the Son of God and the Spirit of God:

2 Samuel 23:2

David said, "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his Word was in my tongue."

1 Chronicles 10:13 (KJV)

So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the Word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

Isaiah 48:16 (KJV)

The Spirit of Christ in the prophet Isaiah said, “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

How are we to know that the Spirit of Christ was in the prophet Isaiah? As the apostle Peter said, 2 Peter 1:19-21 (KJV)

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And John 1:-5, 10-14 (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Thus, Matthew 28:18-20 is true, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, whose Name is one, The Lord Jesus Christ:

Matthew 28:18-20 (KJV)

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

1
  • Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others. I also recommend going through the Help Center's sections on both asking and answering questions.
    – agarza
    Apr 18 at 3:31
-3

A sheriff could say "Open this door!" or "I'm arresting you!", and follow it with "in the name of the Law and of the King!".

He is not implying in any way that the Law and the King are the same thing, much less that they are a single person. He is simply stating the sources of his authority to force the door and make the arrest.

So when Jesus said "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", he was simply indicating by what authorities they would be performing the baptisms.

1
  • 1
    Interesting comment except that it is not based on the Bible text and grammar. How do we know if such rules and idiom applied to Koine Greek? In any case, one does not do anything in the "name of the Law" - it must be the name of someone with authority.
    – user25930
    Apr 22, 2019 at 2:32
-3

The context is:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Baptizing them in the name, is teaching them to observe his commandments.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all the same. It is the Word of God, as plainly stated in the first letter of John:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

So how can baptizing mean teaching? Baptizing means immersing. Immersing them in the teaching of his name, that is his Word, his spirit.

See also:

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And for example,

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

This is also commanded in the old testament:

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

This is part of the passage in Deuteronomy that Jesus calls the great commandment in the law. Jesus defines greatness as doing and teaching his commandments.

3
  • 1
    a potentially good post spoilt by the inclusion of that which is not scripture 1 J 5:7 but a corruption of God's word - among others, this perhaps being the chief.
    – Steve
    Jul 27, 2020 at 2:38
  • What happened in the last 200 years to make this not scripture?
    – David
    Nov 27, 2021 at 8:22
  • 1
    @David It's actually what happened starting about 200 years after scripture was written. 1 John 5:7 was first written in Greek as a marginal note about 1000 years after Christ, and only entered the actual Greek text a couple centuries later. The first record of it is, not in Greek, and not written by John, but in Latin, written by the first proponents of Athanasian philosophy (prior to Athanasius). It was never scripture from its earliest beginnings.
    – Biblasia
    Nov 26, 2022 at 4:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.