Contradiction or Confirmation (Part 3)

“IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST”

As we continue to examine the comparison of Matthew 28:19 and the actions of the apostles in the Book of Acts, we must of necessity examine the fact that the church, and the apostles, in fulfilling the Great Commission, did not baptize repeating the words of Jesus as found in Matthew 28:19, but rather they used the words, “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”, or a minor variant thereof. This is the way that the early church baptized, and it is our responsibility to follow their example, regardless of our personal doctrinal viewpoint or denominational affiliation. The apostles were not mistaken, and they were not lacking any revelation concerning the godhead. “It would seem that the testimony of Acts as to the early administration of baptism is sound”. (“Baptism in the New Testament”, G. R. Beesley-Murray, pg. 99

Baptism in “the name of Jesus Christ” is the baptismal message preached to believers. We must therefore examine the context of Matthew 28:19, for many view its exact wording as the only acceptable method of baptism. Is Matthew 28:19 authentic in its rendering? Some have felt that it, in its triune context, is not a reflection of the words actually spoken by Jesus. “Is it possible to suggest an earlier form of verse 19? Yes, it is. A whole group of exegetes and critics have recognized that the opening declaration of Matthew 28:19 demands a Christological statement to follow it. ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’ leads us to expect as a consequence, ‘Go and make disciples unto me among all nations, baptizing them in my name, teaching them to observe all I commanded you.’ In fact, the first and third clauses have that significance: and it looks as though the second clause has been modified from the Christological to a Trinitarian formula in the interests of the liturgical tradition existing in the evangelists day. (This suggestion was made independently by Linblom, “Jesu Missions och Dopbefallning, Tillika en Studie over det Kristna Dopets Ursprung”, Stockholm, 1919, pg. 75; and by Bultmann in his “Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition”, 3^rd edition, 1957, pg. 163. Lindbolm was followed by H. Evander, September 1938, Luynd, 1938, pg. 59 and Bultman by Michael op. cit. “Der Abscluss des Matthausevaneliums” Evangelische Theologie, 1950-51, pg. 21, and J. Schneider, “Die Taufe im Neuen Testament”, 1952, pg. 31.) This supposition would be increased to well nigh certainty if we agreed with Michael and Jeremias ("Jesus, Promise to the Nations", E.T., 1958, pg. 39) that Matthew 28:19 represents the fulfillment of the vision of the exaltation of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13...In such a scheme there would be no ground for bringing in the Triune name, for baptism is the appropriation of the disciple-subject to the Son of Man.” ('Baptism in the New Testament", G.R. Beesley-Murray, Paternoster Press Ltd., 1962, pg. 83-84)

Many men have formulated doctrines surrounding baptism, its method, mode and manner. However we contend that the Apostles were fully obedient in their actions and message, and that anything different than what the Apostles did or said lies in the broad expanse of error and false doctrine. “Again and again we have cause to remind ourselves that Christian baptism is baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus; in it the name of the Lord is called over the baptized, declaring him to be the Lord’s, and the name is confessed and invoked by the baptized. It is this confessed relationship with the crucified Risen Redeemer that is constitutive for Christian baptism and decisive for its’ significance.” ('Baptism in the New Testament", G.R. Beesley-Murray, Paternoster Press Ltd., 1962, pg. 120)

Others have also testified that this interpretation of Matthew 28:19 is not contradictory, but is in fact correct. Some scholars have noted that Matthew or an earlier copyist paraphrased Christ’s words or borrowed words from another context. Eusebius, a noted church historian who lived in the 300’s, often quoted Matthew 28:19, “in my name”. ('Baptism in the New Testament", G.R. Beesley-Murray, Paternoster Press Ltd., 1962, pg. 81)  

Matthew Henry, a noted Trinitarian commentator, said this about Matthew 28:19, “We are baptized not into the ‘names’ but into the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, which plainly intimates that these are one, and their name one”. ("Matthew Henry Commentary" , Matthew Henry, V, pg 443) This would be in full agreement with the other writers of the Great Commission who place emphasis on the single name of Jesus.

In the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, the following is found, “It is often affirmed, that the words ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ are not the ipsissima verba (exact words) of Jesus, but either the evangelists words put into His mouth, or a later liturgical addition...It may well be that the true explanation why the early church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name is that the words of Matthew 28:19 were not originally meant by our Lord as a baptismal formula. He was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. ("The Gospel According to St. Matthew" , Vol 1 of the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, R.V.G. Tasker, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1961, pg. 275)

William Phillips Hall, while President of the American Tract Society of New York, published a tract in 1929 in which he determined to study the name of God. The tract was named, “Remarkable Biblical Discovery or The Name of God According to the Scriptures”, He concluded in this tract that the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is the complete and full revelation of God, and that the Apostles clearly and correctly understood this and obeyed Matthew 28:19 by using and invoking this name. In his own words he said that the words of Matthew 28:19, “were never used in baptism by the original apostles, or by the church during the days of it’s existence”, and, “All baptisms of those early days were commanded to be, or stated to have been, performed in, or with the invocation of, the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. ("Remarkable Biblical Discovery or The Name of God According to the Scriptures"" , William Phillips Hall, 1929; Reprinted by St. Louis PPH, 1951, pg 10)

Martin Luther, the noted Reformer, said the following concerning baptism according to Matthew 28:19, “Others again, adhering rigidly to their pedantry, condemn the words, ‘I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ’, although it is certain the apostles used this formula in baptizing, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles; they would allow no other form to be valid than this, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ But their contention is in vain, for they bring no proof, but merely assert their own dreams. Baptism truly saves in whatsoever way it is administered, if only it is administered not in the name of man, but in the name of the Lord”. ("The Babylonian Captivity of the Church" , Martin Luther, in Word and Sacrement II , vol. 36 of Abdel Wentz ed., Luther's Works (Philadelphia; Muhlenberg Press, 1959) pg. 63)

We will look in more detail at this subject, but it is a worthy note to make here that all New Testament writers with the exception of Matthew (in 28:19), when associating baptism to a person, refer only to Jesus Christ, and none other.

Our study will continue in the next entry by examining the two prominent preachers of the New Testament, both of whose writings and teachings are well recorded in the book of Acts and the Epistles that they wrote. They will continue to shed important light on this subject of the Apostolic fulfillment of Jesus’ commandments as found in the Great Commission.