Matthew 3:14

3:14 But John ¹  tried to prevent ²  him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?”

Matthew 28:19

28:19 Therefore go ³  and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ⁴ 

[3:14]  ¹ tc ‡ The earliest mss (א* B sa) lack the name of John here (“but he tried to prevent him,” instead of “but John tried to prevent him”). It is, however, clearly implied (and is thus supplied in translation). Although the longer reading has excellent support (Ì⁹⁶ א¹ C D^s L W 0233 0250 Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat[t] sy mae bo), it looks to be a motivated and predictable reading: Scribes apparently could not resist adding this clarification.

[3:14]  ² tn The imperfect verb has been translated conatively.

[28:19]  ³ tn “Go…baptize…teach” are participles modifying the imperative verb “make disciples.” According to ExSyn 645 the first participle (πορευθέντες, poreuqentes, “Go”) fits the typical structural pattern for the attendant circumstance participle (aorist participle preceding aorist main verb, with the mood of the main verb usually imperative or indicative) and thus picks up the mood (imperative in this case) from the main verb (μαθητεύσατε, maqhteusate, “make disciples”). This means that semantically the action of “going” is commanded, just as “making disciples” is. As for the two participles that follow the main verb (βαπτίζοντες, baptizontes, “baptizing”; and διδάσκοντες, didaskontes, “teaching”), these do not fit the normal pattern for attendant circumstance participles, since they are present participles and follow the aorist main verb. However, some interpreters do see them as carrying additional imperative force in context. Others regard them as means, manner, or even result.

[28:19]  ⁴ 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.