Q: In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However, in Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 19:5, people are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Lord Jesus. In Acts 10:8, people are baptized in the name of the Lord. However, unless one is a modalist, one must believe that Jesus is the Son, not the Father and the Spirit. So isnt this a contradiction?
A: No; to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (and variations on that theme) doesnt describe the formula pronounced over the person being baptized. It describes the act itself. In First Corinthians 10:2. Paul says that the Hebrews, as they went through the Red Sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. To be baptized into (Greek eis there in Matthew 28:19, and in Acts 2:38) the name of Jesus Christ is to, via submission to baptism under the auspices of His messenger, to declare ones allegiance to Him and to accept ones responsibility to represent Him.
First-generation Jewish Christians were already familiar with immersion in miqveh-pools for the purpose of ceremonial purification. This was a baptism into repentance and John the Baptists baptism, while emphasizing that idea as Mark 1:4 says -- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for (eis, the same word rendered in in Matthew 28:19) the remission of sins. But that did not mean that as people were baptized, John had to mechanically told them Your sins are hereby forgiven; rather than some other words. The standardization of a baptismal formula was not a consideration. Nor does the standardization of a baptismal formula seem to be a consideration in the book of Acts -- for as the question shows, when Luke refers to baptism in the name of X, X is not uniformly expressed.
The Gospel of Matthew, however, displays various features which seem to be included, or framed, or both, so as to provide the church with a liturgical tool. Jesus major ethical teachings are summed up in one small section (The Sermon on the Mount, in chapters 6-7) and within that section, we have the Lords Model Prayer. Matthew also supplies a model for the observation of the Lords Supper (in 26:26-30 -- though he borrowed this, it seems, from Mark) and includes some of Jesus instruction about church discipline (in 18:15-20). More evidence could be listed, but the point seems sufficiently shown that among Matthews purposes for writing was to make a text that the church could use in its gatherings, and in the observance of the ordinances which Christ established. These ordinances include baptism. Although Matthew does not hit the reader over the head with this instruction, it seems to me that the only reason Matthew would have for preserving the exact words in 28:19 rather than summarizing them would be so that they may be used liturgically at Christian baptisms. And we see early Christians (in the Didache, for instance) using those words in that way.
So: its a long-established interpretation -- going back at least to the sub-apostolic age -- to understand Matthew 28:19s baptismal formula as the words which ought to be pronounced at Christian baptisms, and there is no sound reason to abandon that interpretation. But it should be recognized that there is nothing magical about those words. What matters is that in the act of submission to baptism, the believer is baptized into Christ, -- pledging his faithfulness to Him, accepting his responsibility to share His kingdom with others, and receiving membership into His holy family.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: No; to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (and variations on that theme) doesnt describe the formula pronounced over the person being baptized. It describes the act itself. In First Corinthians 10:2. Paul says that the Hebrews, as they went through the Red Sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. To be baptized into (Greek eis there in Matthew 28:19, and in Acts 2:38) the name of Jesus Christ is to, via submission to baptism under the auspices of His messenger, to declare ones allegiance to Him and to accept ones responsibility to represent Him.
First-generation Jewish Christians were already familiar with immersion in miqveh-pools for the purpose of ceremonial purification. This was a baptism into repentance and John the Baptists baptism, while emphasizing that idea as Mark 1:4 says -- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for (eis, the same word rendered in in Matthew 28:19) the remission of sins. But that did not mean that as people were baptized, John had to mechanically told them Your sins are hereby forgiven; rather than some other words. The standardization of a baptismal formula was not a consideration. Nor does the standardization of a baptismal formula seem to be a consideration in the book of Acts -- for as the question shows, when Luke refers to baptism in the name of X, X is not uniformly expressed.
The Gospel of Matthew, however, displays various features which seem to be included, or framed, or both, so as to provide the church with a liturgical tool. Jesus major ethical teachings are summed up in one small section (The Sermon on the Mount, in chapters 6-7) and within that section, we have the Lords Model Prayer. Matthew also supplies a model for the observation of the Lords Supper (in 26:26-30 -- though he borrowed this, it seems, from Mark) and includes some of Jesus instruction about church discipline (in 18:15-20). More evidence could be listed, but the point seems sufficiently shown that among Matthews purposes for writing was to make a text that the church could use in its gatherings, and in the observance of the ordinances which Christ established. These ordinances include baptism. Although Matthew does not hit the reader over the head with this instruction, it seems to me that the only reason Matthew would have for preserving the exact words in 28:19 rather than summarizing them would be so that they may be used liturgically at Christian baptisms. And we see early Christians (in the Didache, for instance) using those words in that way.
So: its a long-established interpretation -- going back at least to the sub-apostolic age -- to understand Matthew 28:19s baptismal formula as the words which ought to be pronounced at Christian baptisms, and there is no sound reason to abandon that interpretation. But it should be recognized that there is nothing magical about those words. What matters is that in the act of submission to baptism, the believer is baptized into Christ, -- pledging his faithfulness to Him, accepting his responsibility to share His kingdom with others, and receiving membership into His holy family.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
