Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Acts 2:38 – In the Name of Jesus
If you witnessed a baptism and heard the preacher say, “I now baptize you in the name of Jesus,” would that be a scriptural baptism? When you were baptized, were you baptized in the name of Jesus? If so, why? If not, why not?
The part of Acts 2:38 we are focusing on this time is the phrase, be baptized in the name [onoma (3686)] of Jesus Christ.
What does it mean to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ? Is there a difference between Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19?
Let’s look at Matthew 28:19 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in [eis (1519)] the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
I am going to assume that if you have been baptized, most likely the preacher said, “I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Am I correct?
People question why Peter didn’t say, “in [epi (1509)] the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). There are three common responses, plus a fourth opinion which is the one I hold to.
1. Trinitarian Formula View
“The question often arises, why is not the Trinitarian formula of baptism given in Mt.28:19 utilized by the apostles in the book of Acts” (Jerome H. Smith, ed., The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, pp.1235.)
The solution he cites as “best sees this shortened expression as the figure of speech Synecdoche of the Part, whereby a part is put for the whole, a shortened expression for the fuller expression. It seems to be that the apostles indeed did use the full formula, but simply referred to the act of baptism by the shorter phrase `in the name of Jesus Christ,’ `in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ or even shorter, `in the name of the Lord,’ in common with the wider practice of that day of being baptized `in the name` of one’s spiritual teacher, as John’s disciples were (Acts 19:3)….Thus the expression pertains more to this distinctiveness than to the precise formula employed.”
2. Dispensational View
“…some (often in the name of `right division’ of Scripture: 2 Tim.2:15; 1 Thess.4:2) would refer the practice of baptism within narrow dispensational limits – the time of the establishment of Jewish Christian churches in the early part of Acts – suspending the validity of baptism for the church age, reserving it to the millennial kingdom, a view totally out of harmony with the general practice of Bible believing Christians throughout church history. This view depends upon artificially dividing Scripture (1 Thes.4:2; 2 Tim.2:15) in a manner unauthorized by its own content, by principles undiscoverable by the proverbial independent Bible reader on a desert island with no denominational `helps’ to guide him, a quite sound rule for determining whether a teaching is truly Biblical (Is.8:20l Acts 17:11). Such a view contradicts the Bible doctrine of the perpetuity of the ordinance establishing ritual baptism (Mt.28:19).” ”(Jerome H. Smith, ed., The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, pp.1235-1236.)
3. “Jesus Only” View
This view teaches that Jesus is the Father, plus the Son and is also the Holy Spirit. Therefore being baptized in the name [singular] of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is clarified in Acts 2:38 by showing us that the name [singular] of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is indeed Jesus. The people holding this doctrine ask, “What is the ‘name’ of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if it isn’t Jesus?” This doctrine is called “Jesus Only” because of a disbelief in the plural (Trinitarian) nature of God. Properly speaking then, the name of the Father is Jesus. The name of the Son is Jesus. The name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. The denomination, “Oneness Pentecostals” hold to this view of God. They falter in not understanding that “name” is more than a moniker.
4. No Formula View
Of these three, the first is the most correct. The main flaw in its argumentation is relying upon a formula being “said.” Nothing in Matthew 28:19 suggests that the apostles were commanded to say in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They were commanded to do this; they were not commanded to say this. Nothing in scripture ever dictates anything to be said. Baptism is done, acted out, performed, and completed, by the authority of Deity. In that, both Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 agree. When we are baptized in the name of Deity, we are being baptized by divine authority and in to a divine family.
Let’s go back to the original question, if you witnessed a baptism and heard the preacher say nothing, would it be a scriptural baptism? When you were baptized, were you baptized in the name of Jesus?
Comments