Did Messiah really speak the words in Mathew 28:19?
    "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Mat. 28:19).

     Tim Hegg presents some excellent arguments defending the the genuineness of Yeshua's words in Matthew 28:19, but his paper is written in a scholarly style, wherein negative arguments are reviewed first, and his explanation is only given toward the end. I am linking his paper here with my remarks for you to read later, as I intend to get to the practical and pastoral points faster than Hegg does.
      Firstly, there are no manuscripts of the NT that omit the important words, so there are no compelling reasons on manuscript grounds to say that they are not original. And if that were all we needed to know, then that would be the end of the discussion. The problem however is that in the book of Acts no one is immersed in the "name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" as if the words were used as such in a baptismal formula. What we see is only variations of  "immersed in the name of Yeshua."  Does this then mean that Matthew 28:19 was added by a later party to the text of Matthew as an expanded baptismal formula?
       The solution suggested by Hegg, and which I agree is correct is that Matthew 28:19 is not a baptismal formula at all. In other words, Yeshua is not saying that these words are to be said over every baptism. Messiah was not giving a "repeat after me" instruction for the Apostles to follow. One example I could give here is 1Cor. 10:2, "and all were immersed into Mosheh in the cloud and in the sea." Also the Rabbis did baptize in the name of Mosheh, and still do, but they do not say over the person being immersed, "I immerse you in the name of Mosheh"! Nor were those baptized by John intiated with, "I baptize you in the name of John."
    What Messiah means is that the immersion should be done wherein the convert understands they are coming under the authority or rule of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Ruakh. The word "name" is equivalent to saying under the banner of, or emblem of Abba, Ben Elohim, and Ruakh HaKodesh. As long as the candidate understood that the Son is the Adonai who spoke with Avraham, Yitshaq, and Ya'aqov, and that he is Elohim and one with the Father from everlasting to everlasting, and that he is sent by the Ruakh, and that he sends the Ruakh, then the candidate has sufficent understanding. There were no special instructions to say special words over the person being immersed, just an instruction that he or she understand the fuller revelation of Yahweh's nature in the light of Messiah's teaching.
       In Isa. 48:16 it is said about Messiah, "Draw near to Me! Hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From the time of its coming to be, there I am, and now Adonai Yahweh has sent Me, and His Spirit."
       So then Messiah's words and the differing words in Acts make sense provided we do not make the mistake of thinking a repeat after me immersion formula is being given.
       The words "into the name of...." (Father, Son, or Spirit) therefore mean that the candidate, through the immersion, is submitting to the rule of the Father, the rule of the Son, and the teaching of the Spirit. It is just as those who are immersed into Mosheh are making their public confession that they are under the authority of Mosheh's teaching. This sense of "name" is widely known even in English usages. For example a messenger says "In the name of the king I decree...." What this means is that the authority of the king is being invoked on those who are to be subject to the decree. The concept is not foregin to Hebrew (see Esther 8:8). What is foregin is the idea that "name" in Matthew 28:19 is focused on how we pronounce the name of Elohim, i.e. Yahweh, Yeshua, Yehoshua, etc. How we say his name is important enough, but that is not the important point of Matthew 28:19. In that context "into the name" has to do with acknowledging the authority of the Ruakh Elohim in our lives, and that of the Son, and that of the Father.
   So then it would be permitted for the Apostles not to say all the words of Matthew 28:19, and certainly by example it appears that "into the name of Yeshua" was deemed to be equivalent to understanding that this means one is coming under the authority of Abba and Rukah likewise.
    Nowhere do we find any example in Scripture of anyone dunking a candidate while saying the words "I baptize you..."; In all such references, Yohanan Ha Matbil (John the Baptist) is speaking about what had been done, or what he was doing. But never is there a quoation of him uttering the words "I baptize you..." while doing the immersion! And in most of those places the words "with water" and an explanation of its meaning follow, which has never to my knowledge been used as a formula.
    Now let us fast forward 2000 years and consider the question of Matthew 28:19 again in light of all the heresy against Messiah since then. The usual opponent of Matthew 28:19 has denied the originality of the text on the presupposition that Messiah is not YHWH in the flesh.  And less usual, but commonly enough, people have wished to deny its originality because they do not like the suggestion that there are three persons in one Elohim. I myself don't think the passage proves there are only three persons (any more than Isa. 48:16 would), though it suggests there are at least three. I wouldn't know how many persons the Spirit manifests himself as; some texts imply seven. It all depends on the definition of a "person." All we can really be certain is that Yeshua was definitely a person in the sense that we know what a person is, because Yahweh became a man in Messiah. Therefore, I reject creedal language such as "three in one" and "trinity" as speculations going beyond what is written. Usually it involves a lot of philosophical wrangling. I have posted what I believe here. I used to have trouble with Matthew 28:19 until I understood the Torah and Prophets teaching and Hebrew a lot better. The great Isaiah passages about the unity of Elohim, i.e. "...there is none besides Me," etc. where he speaks in the first person of his exclusivity are no problem to the Son also being Yahweh simply because in Hebrew one may speak in the first person on behalf of those united as one with himself. Indeed there is no Elohim before Him, and shall be none after him. The Son is first and last, equally eternal to the Father and Spirit.
       I tend to let the creed oriented people have their speculations and try not to make a big issue with them unless they tell me that I have to utter their creed to be saved instead of simply trust what Messiah actually said. If you read Tim's article it shows that he tends to be creed oriented.
    O.k. so now in light of the last 2000 years of heresy, Arianism, Modalism, Sabelianism, etc., what does arguing that Mathew 28:19 should be omitted either from the text or from immersions suggest? What it suggests is that one is allied with those heresies. In the days of Acts it would not have suggested this. For those sects were not yet born. The earliest was the Ebionites, and Ebionism has had quite a revial these days. You might term them Torah observant Messianics with the views of the Watchtower Society or Unitarians on Messiah.  No I don't think it is acceptable to be deemed a real follower of Mashikah and at the same time deny that he is Yahweh in his very person.  One cannot have their true ultimate trusting faithfulness in a person that they do not regard is Elohim. And this is what a person is publically affirming when they are immersed!
     In any case I have three candiates for immersion in my own household who are preparing themselves as Torah observant faithful to take this step of obedience. I think we are going to include the whole phrase in the immersion from Matthew 28:19...but nothing that smacks of Catholicism or credalism. Just the texts mind you.  No, I cannot lay down a rule that everyone else has to do likewise, other than stating my reasons why I think it is advisable in the light of the revival of the Ebionite heresy and their motivations for saying Matthew 28:19 is not original.

8/28/6152 (Nov. 3, 2013), by Daniel Gregg.