August 12, 2021 by SkyWatch Editor
So far, we’ve looked at how the Word of God treats the issue of names and naming, and we’ve taken time to consider examples as it pertains to people, and then to God. Second, we established what importance the name “Melchizedek” holds in establishing Jesus as our High Priest. Now, let’s put these three in a blender and see what delicious, soul-feeding substance comes from it.
“The Name” As Term of Personhood
Even the term “the Name” (Hebrew ha-shem), in and of itself as it appears throughout the Word of God, is a reference to personhood. It is, in a way, anthropomorphic all on its own, taking on a level of interventional activity on the behalf of humanity. Consider Isaiah 30:27–28:
Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire: And his breath, as an overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the people, causing them to err.
In such usage (and others; see Psalm 20 and Isaiah 60:9 for a couple of examples), “the Name” is God, and God is His Name. The authority of one is inseparably conjoined to the power of the other and vice versa, forever, throughout the universe and into perpetuity.
Deuteronomy 12:11 covers a telling moment in early Scripture:
Then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord.
From this, we see that part of the purpose of having a physical location of worship for Israel was so that God’s Name could “dwell” therein. Later in Scripture, when this place was, in fact, established, the presence of Yahweh, as it dwelt above the Mercy Seat, was identified as “the Name” (Chronicles 22:19).
Having said this, let’s fast forward to the New Testament. Jesus, in His High Priestly Prayer of John 17 (which should mean more to us all now that we’ve reflected on His following the Higher Order of Melchizedek), acknowledges this Name as His own, as one with the Father’s (the central theme of this prayer is oneness with the Father), and therefore as unto His own charge:
And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.…
…that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:11–12, 21, ESV)
At this moment in the life of Christ, Jesus boldly and directly acknowledges that the Name of God was that which was “given [Him].” There is no basis to refute the idea that the personification of “the Name” is thus transferred onto the Man behind our sin atonement. (For more examples of how Jesus is the same Name as the Father, see Acts 5:40–42 and Romans 10:9–13, which partially quotes Joel 2:32.)
The fact that Jesus prayed to the Father that we—we!!!—would be kept “in [the/His] Name” (v. 11) means that we have inherited something very important. It’s crucial that we don’t miss it.
We are now people “of” the Name. How? Because we are people “of” the covenant—first the old, as Israel, and then the new, under Christ. Watch this…
First, the people of God from the beginning were essentially told that “the Name” was too grand a power for humans to know, and when asked, God essentially let us know that it doesn’t concern us (Genesis 32:29; Exodus 3:14). As has been made generally clear up to this point, to the ancients, knowing the name of a powerful entity meant that the authority would be shared with the one who knew:
To the ancient, the name was an element of personality and of power. It might be so charged with divine potency that it could not be pronounced [like YHWH]. Or the god might retain a name hidden for himself alone, maintaining this element of power over all gods and men.[i]
This could potentially throw off the balance of the deity’s power and present harm to humanity. Yet, something quite bizarre and unprecedented occurs after God has deemed Moses worthy of the knowledge of His Name:
And he (God) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee [Moses], and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee. (Exodus 33:19a)
Whoa—oh goodness! That’s a game changer. You caught that, right? Yahweh just proclaimed His Name to Moses on Israelites at Mt. Sinai! Note:
Giving the name entails a certain kind of relationship; it opens up the possibility of, indeed admits a desire for, a certain intimacy in relationship. A relationship without a name inevitably means some distance; naming the name is necessary for closeness. Naming makes true encounter and communication possible. Naming entails availability. By giving the name, God becomes accessible to people. God and people can now meet one another and there can be address on the part of both parties.… Naming also entails vulnerability. In becoming so available to the world, God is to some degree at the disposal of those who can name the name. God’s name may be misused and abused as well as honored. For God to give the name is to open himself up to hurt. Naming entails the likelihood of divine suffering, and so this act of name-giving is decisively continuous with 3:7: “I know their suffering.” This shows why there is a commandment regarding the name of God.[ii]
In this act of sharing the otherwise unspeakable and unknowable title of God with His people, God has chosen to solidify His covenant and deepen His relationship with them…even to His own vulnerability. No other nation or people of the old world would know this secret. The Israelites now had a tool they didn’t have before; this made them “people of the Name.” If the countless scholars weighing in on this moment are correct, this gave the Jews the authority to call upon the Name when they needed God’s assistance and favor. This kind of intense power could be abused! Over time, in the sincere interest of keeping what God dared share with His people holy and sacred, Jews gradually embraced the practice of not uttering God’s Name at all, which is where we stumble upon things like “G-d” in modern Judaism. (Hopefully by now, most readers have picked up on why the crasser equivalent of “Gosh, darn it” at a toe-stubbing is not what the Third Commandment is all about. Using the Name in vain meant to drop the authority of God on some matter of one’s personal gain or vainglory. That said, the “Gosh, darn it” equivalent would still be using one of the titles of God uselessly and without intention other than to let out some pessimistic steam, so it’s obvious we shouldn’t be using it that way, either.)
Then, as we saw earlier, Jesus also was “the Name,” as it was Him also, because Jesus was “one with” Yahweh, and Yahweh had “given” Jesus His Name. The Old Covenant was sealed by the sharing of Yahweh’s secret Name, which was a mystery until that point (and because of its sacred treatment from the Jews after that, it largely remains a secret to scholars who, today, argue all over the place what it should be and what it means). We know Jesus, and therefore, we know the Name—literally and spiritually—of the New Covenant. This is why we have such verses that make names synonymous with personhood. For example, Acts 1:15:
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty).
Take that same application over to Acts 15:14:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
This is a clear reference to the concept that God wants, if I might speak in an adoptive terminology, “a people that belong to Him.”
We are that people!
Though we speak Jesus’ Name with boldness now, as opposed to trying to keep it secret, we do so with intention and purpose. We are no less the people of the New Covenant because we utter His many precious titles aloud and in text (such as this book), which now extends to any Jew or Gentile to claim for his or her own, if he or she can cast off the shackles of doubt and accept the free gift that was the sacrifice of the Son.
And if we are people of the New Covenant, then we are people of the Name.
If you have already accepted Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, welcome to the family, to the fellowship of the Name!
Have you been baptized yet? Whether you have or haven’t, there is something about that sacrament you should know about.
Baptism “in” the Name of? Not Exactly…
To begin, there’s an odd (but rewarding!) bit of linguistic intel I would like to share. Just as a reminder, the symbolism of baptism is that a person is brought to the water in his or her sinful state, publicly (in front of witnesses) submitting himself or herself to be submerged into the water, representing a spiritual cleansing by the blood/living water of the Lamb, and then that person is brought back up anew. It is the enactment of the outward sacrament that shows a man’s internal invitation to Christ—and therefore the spiritual transformation into a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17)—is serious and complete. (The act of sanctification has also begun.) The water, itself, has no power. But the words…that’s a different matter.
Do you remember the words spoken at your baptism, or have you been to another’s lately and heard what was said just before the dunk? More than likely, it was, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Right?
Actually, though this is beautiful, this is not what the Word tells us to say during the official sacrament of baptism. Not exactly, anyway…and the early Church Fathers, Church historians, and biblical commentators almost all attest to this. (Donna Howell has also written about this a time or two in previous works.)
The Greek preposition translated as “in” here in the baptism sacrament verse (Matthew 28:19) is more accurately translated as “into.” You are not just being baptized “in” the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as if this is a stamp of God’s acknowledgment and approval of a symbolic act. Something done “in the name of” someone else means you have their permission and authority to do something. But when “in” becomes “into,” the phrase is no longer about consent…it becomes familial! Being baptized “into the name” means you “take on that name” like a child does today when he or she is adopted into a new family. He or she “becomes” a Smith or a Johnson. In equivalent terms: Adopted children don’t just dip in water because their new parents give their permission, authority, or consent to join the family. We, in joining the family of God as His children, are being placed “into the name.”
I was astounded when I had first heard this theology, simply because it was never even questioned around me, but it’s legitimate. Stuart Weber, in the Holman New Testament Commentary, the Matthew volume, states:
The believer who chooses to submit to baptism into this name identifies with God’s name as well as the spiritual family of all others who are identified with this same name.[iii]
We take on the family title, as well as the family charge and mission! It means “no less than entering into covenant with a person, as God; professing faith in Him as such; enlisting one’s self into His service; and vowing all obedience and submission to Him.”[iv] As R. T. France’s commentary on the book of Matthew attests:
But while John’s baptism was only a preparatory one (3:11), Jesus now institutes one with a fuller meaning. It is a commitment to (in the name is literally “into the name,” implying entrance into an allegiance) the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (all three of whom, interestingly, were involved in the event of Jesus’ own baptism, 3:16–17). Jesus thus takes his place along with his Father and the Spirit as the object of worship and of the disciple’s commitment. The experience of God in these three Persons is the essential basis of discipleship. At the same time the singular noun name (not “names”) underlines the unity of the three Persons [i.e., “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as the Trinity, all three involved in the “entrance into an allegiance”].[v]
The Didache (one of the earliest didactic works compiled by the Christian Church)—also known as The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations—was compiled circa AD 100–150. In its “CHAP. VII.—CONCERNING BAPTISM,” we read:
And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[vi]
This work was written so near the time of Christ that it’s logical to assume its authors knew better what our Lord ordered for His own sacrament than the writers of our English translations do. Many of our modern translations have been heavily associated with, or influenced by, the Latin Vulgate. This creates some confusion, as the Pulpit Commentary shares:
In (into) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Our version follows the Vulgate, in nomine, which does not give the right force to the expression. The phrase does not mean merely invoking the Name, under the sanction of the great Name, but something more than this. It signifies into the power and influence of the Holy Trinity, into faith in the three Persons of God, and the duties and privileges consequent on that faith, into the family of God and obedience unto its Head. The “into” shows the end and aim of the consecration of baptism.[vii]
But, in case that’s not enough to convince some skeptics, here are a few more sources to reflect on:
- “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost—It should be, ‘into the name’; as in 1 Co 10:2, ‘And were all baptized unto (or rather “into”) Moses’; and Ga 3:27, ‘For as many of you as have been baptized into’”[viii]—Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Volume 2
- “in = into. Ap[pendix] 104”[ix]; and from the noted Appendix 104: “[The Greek word] eis…denotes motion to or unto an object, with the purpose of reaching or touching it”;[x] in other words, merging or interacting with a thing (“into”) as opposed to observing or allowing something—The Companion Bible: Being the Authorized Version of 1611 with the Structures and Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Suggestive and with 198 Appendixes
- “in (or rather, into)… What is meant by being baptised ‘into a name’? The answer is to be found in the fact so prominent in the Old Testament (g.Exodus 3:14–15), that the Name of God is a revelation of what He is. Baptism was to be no longer, as it had been in the hands of John as the forerunner, merely a symbol of repentance, but was the token that those who received it were brought into an altogether new relation to Him who was thus revealed to them.”[xi]—Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
- “But we are here instructed respecting the appropriation of this institution to the Christian dispensation, in its most complete form. The apostles, and their successors in the ministry of the word, are ordered to baptize those whom they made Christ’s disciples, into the name.”[xii]—Benson Commentary
- “in the name” Rather, intothe name. Jewish proselytes were baptized into the name of the Father; Jesus adds the names of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”[xiii]—Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
- “Rev[ised], correctly, ‘into the name.’… Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with him.…[and] ‘into’ is the preposition commonly used with ‘baptize.’”[xiv]—Vincent’s Word Studies
Our choosing to become a “new creature” in Christ—and the corresponding outward sacrament that accompanies that decision—was always going to be “with the authority of God’s name” anyway. If you’ll remember, it was through the mouth of Jesus, Himself, that the sacrament was established in the first place (Matthew 28:19). So although it’s conceivable to think that Jesus would have said, “Go ye into the world and baptize people in the authority of my Name,” there’s the natural question of why that would need to be stipulated. The authority of Jesus’ aname was implied when He, Himself charged the apostles with this responsibility. Everything—everything—changes when we realize He really meant (in modern words), “Go ye into the world and baptize people into my family, so that they might join me in my mission to save”!
Now, with our being placed “into” the family and mission of God—which requires a full surrender of self and cause for the rest of our existence to the three Persons of the Trinity and all they require—we, the “people of the Name,” have a duty to uphold. As adoptees, it is our responsibility to grow in the Lord personally and to contribute to the increase of our fellowship.
An adoption is a change into a new family. It’s covenantal. Those who are adopted take on a new life from many angles, from a name change to new dinner-table traditions. The ways of the old family, the old life, are no more. The memory of that life may always remain, but the former is shed and replaced by the new that we step into. We are now owned and loved by someone who will care for us in a way we haven’t been cared for before, and the greatest void of our lives is filled.
Unfortunately, many folks with selfish intentions have manipulated the foster-care system to collect a paycheck (or worse), and there have been many tragic tales of adoptions that ended only in neglect or relinquishment of the child the second the “honeymoon phase” is over and the responsibility of parenthood kicks in. Because of this, it’s hard for some to fully grasp the beauty of these care concepts apart from the stories of those who have exploited them. Nevertheless, for the following comparison, we will proceed, assuming a best-case scenario with an adoption the way God would wish it.
Follow this trail of thought for a moment: Robert Jones (a fictional name I just grabbed out of thin air) is a man of the greatest integrity. He’s an amazing guy with a large home and an enormous heart for children in need. He chooses to adopt a troubled child named Billy into his family, and Billy takes on his new name. This boy “becomes” Billy Jones. He is now Billy of the name Jones. There is a covenantal covering over Billy that is solidified the day the adoption papers go through and the name “Jones” is now legally bound to the boy. The sacred agreement Robert makes with Billy in this legal transaction of adoption is a promise, a vow that he gifts to this boy to care for him, bring him under the covering of Robert’s roof and protection, let him occupy Robert’s space, be a part of all Robert’s family fireworks barbeques, come to Robert with questions and needs, etc.
Many things about Billy will always be the same: He will always love the soothing sounds of classical symphonies, his hair will continue to grow in blond, he will prefer to wear red when he practices on his skateboard in the neighborhood park, he’ll keep enjoying slapstick comedy, and so on. But there will be many changes as well. As Billy gets used to his new home and learns to put more and more faith and trust in the relationship Robert is forming with him, his decisions and habits will shift into a new place. The goals he had in his previous, tormented life—such as running away from home and finding some way to be rich and self-reliant so he never has to depend on anyone—start to seem less appealing. As Robert sets the example of perfect love and care, slowly but surely, Billy begins to adapt into newer, healthier thought patterns. Though it takes a while, Billy eventually comes to trust that Robert isn’t going to leave him like his first family did, and he starts to wonder how he ever could have lived without a father like Robert. Day by day, he releases the internal baggage that plagued him in his former life, replacing that pain with hope for brighter tomorrows and a genuine kindness for other hurting kids he meets.
He soon finds that his habits are changing as well. Whereas Billy used to pull the blankets over his head in the morning and refuse to get up because he didn’t want to face another round of his parents fighting, now he can’t wait to get to the kitchen first thing every day to share breakfast with his new daddy. In the past, he lived with earbuds in his ears even when music wasn’t playing so he could remain socially aloof and disconnected, but now he can’t wait to visit with his friends! Before, when another kid at school picked a fight with him, he saw only a punk who deserved to be punched…but now when that happens, he recognizes the internal hurt and rage that drives another child to act out, so he finds a way of steering the negative energy in a more neutral or positive direction. He finds himself making decisions for the good, the pure, and the virtuous things each day now, and for the first time ever, he’s beginning to taste what it’s like to thrive in this life instead of just fighting to survive.
In addition to the internal transformations is an environmental conversion. At his old place, Billy would have been allowed to sit in the basement in front of a computer, looking at any poisonous imagery he wanted to put into his mind while his parents were upstairs getting high. But in this new home with a loving father, Billy is expected to clean up after himself and help with the household chores, and all extracurricular activities he participates in have to pass a moral standards check. There are certainly moments when Billy is tempted to smart off, sneak to the computer at night and look at things he shouldn’t, or pull the blanket back over his head when he hears his dad announce first thing in the morning that the lawn needs mowing. And because Billy is human, he absolutely does give in to temptations and fails sometimes, doing things like shouting a curse word on the basketball court, slamming the door when Robert tells him to get off the phone, or mocking his Sunday school teacher at church. But Robert continues to lift Billy up, love him, and believe in his ability to do better while consistently presenting him with a firm, unchanging list of rules and expectations that, Robert says, will lead to the happiest possible life for Billy down the road.
As time goes on, the bond is strengthened between Robert and Billy to the point that Billy can’t stand idly by when he sees another young person hurting the way he used to, like Ted, a foster kid down the road with “skateboarding bruises” where skateboarding bruises wouldn’t naturally be. Ted’s situation looks so much like Billy’s old life of sadness and despair that Billy is eaten alive with the desire to help his friend. One day, out of desperation, he approaches Robert with what he feels is a preposterous request: Would Robert adopt Ted, too?
Imagine the surprise a character like young Billy would experience if Robert says yes, then finds a way to make the adoption process both immediate and pain-free. Now consider how exciting the scenario would be if Robert tells Billy, “Go, you, to the ends of the neighborhood and tell the good news to every living creature that my house will never be too full to welcome in new children or teens, no past baggage will ever be too much, and I will always be personally available for everyone who comes into my presence, forever.” Wouldn’t that be a cool addition to the story of Billy and Robert?
But, you see, that’s the miracle of what God has already done.
When we, the adopted, come into the Family, the Body of Christ, we experience something very close to what Billy experiences with Robert, except our encounter is with a perfect, infinite Being whose house truly will never become too crowded with family and whose omnipresence really does allow for personal availability for all. God really and truly is standing there with open arms, ready and willing to accept any and all into His Family and His presence. His invitation is eternal, and there is never an admission fee. No false advertising draws in a weary soul with promises that can’t be kept, for He is immutable, unchanging and steady. Because He is omniscient, He is Lord over every force of the universe, and because He is omnipotent, He has the power necessary to execute the vows written in His Word; no child of God’s will lack for anything on His watch. Oh, what a mighty God we serve!
Hang on a second, though. That’s not all there is to this picture. There’s only one problem, and it’s doesn’t have to do with God, but with where we choose to place the period.
Like Billy, we, too, are required to shake off the old, former life and take on the new one that comes with stepping into our new family. We can’t enjoy the benefits of God’s free gift of salvation without understanding that such an adoption is a legal transaction in the spiritual realm, requiring changes on our end, too. When we give our hearts to the Lord and make the eternally rewarding decision to become a part of the Body of Christ, we become a new creature entirely:
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. (2 Corinthians 5:17; LEB)
Being spiritually adopted by God places us in the army of the “people of the Name of Christ.”
Our very names are recorded in heaven (Luke 10:20), written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Revelation 3:5)! We’re “destiny-ed” to a calling so much higher than our wildest imaginations from the very second we sincerely accept salvation. Whatever our spiritual nametags said before, it’s all “skunk cabbage” and “corpse flower” compared to the identity He brings us into. Through Him we can overcome the temptation of our sin, as well as the damage to our hearts that the sin has caused, and in fact, we are given a brand new name (Revelation 2:17)! Top scholars even acknowledge that this is “to receive Jesus’ victorious, kingly name… [B]elievers’ reception of this name represents their final reward of consummate identification and unity with the intimate, end-time presence and power of Christ in his kingdom and under his sovereign authority… [T]he ‘new name’ is a mark of genuine membership in the community of the redeemed” who will go on to enter the blessed City of God![xv]
And whereas that status means everything for you and me in the light of the world and all eternity, it also means we must release the past person and take on the attributes of the Father. We’re charged to be better people and examples with our behaviors, because Jesus’ final words before His ascension was that we really are to go to the ends of the earth and tell every creature the Good News that Christ has a family and a Name for them, too.
Recall the heroes of the faith. Take a minute to think about those men and women who radically revolutionized the way the secular world viewed Christianity or Jesus. In fact, let’s narrow the list down to just a few stars from the “Preachers of the Great Awakening” list: John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Dwight Moody, John and Charles Wesley, Charles Finney, and James McGready—or more recent names, like Billy Graham, Kathryn Kuhlman, Carmen, or Keith Green. As vastly different as any one of these ministers is from the others, they all hold one thing in common: Their names will never be forgotten, not because they had a nice ring to them, but because they took their spiritual adoption papers seriously; the assumed the character attributes of the Father after the grace of the Son and through the power of the Spirit, giving their whole lives as innovators of the Gospel message. We are called toward increase! We’re not only allowed to share our family with others, but we’re commanded to do so. We’ve taken on ha-shem—the Name.
The “sound in the air” Juliet-ism suddenly seems absurdly superficial.
What’s on your name tag? (Click to Source)
UP NEXT: A Long Ritual, a Dark Winter, and the Age of Aquarius
[i] John A. Wilson, “The God and His Unknown Name of Power,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969) 12.
[ii] Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, ed. Jr., James Luther Mays and Patrick D. Miller, “Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching” (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1991) 65.
[iii] S.K. Weber, Holman New Testament Commentary: Matthew: Vol. 1 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers; 2000) 485.
[iv] J. S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1952) 682.
[v] R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary: Vol. 1 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985) 420.
[vi] A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe, A. C. (Eds.), The Lord’s Teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. In: Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies: Vol. 7 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886) 379; emphasis added.
[vii] Pulpit Commentary, “Matthew 28:19,” BibleHub Online, last accessed February 18, 2021, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/matthew/28.htm; italics added; bold in original.
[viii] R. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, & D. Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible: Vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997) 63.
[ix] E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible: Being the Authorized Version of 1611 with the Structures and Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Suggestive and with 198 Appendixes: Vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife; 2018) 1,380.
[x] Ibid., 149.
[xi] Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, “Matthew 28:19,” BibleHub Online, last accessed February 18, 2021, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/matthew/28.htm.
[xii] Benson Commentary, “Matthew 28:19,” BibleHub Online, last accessed February 18, 2021, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/matthew/28.htm.
[xiii] Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, “Matthew 28:19,” BibleHub Online, last accessed February 18, 2021, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/matthew/28.htm.
[xiv] Vincent’s Word Studies, “Matthew 28:19,” BibleHub Online, last accessed February 18, 2021, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/vws/matthew/28.htm.
[xv] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W. B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999) 254–255.
We’re so happy to be able to offer you the highest level of Excellence
in a Comprehensive Telehealth Membership Plan
that just about everyone can absolutely afford.
The only thing you can’t afford, is to be without it!
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION!