Appendix 1: The Name in Which We Are to Be Baptized

I do not intend to go much in depth into this subject. There are those who feel very strongly about the words spoken at baptism. I do not, and this appendix will explain why.

First, it is true that ever mention of water baptism in the Book of Acts says that it was done "in Jesus name." Matthew 28:19, however, shows Jesus commanding the apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Those who belong to "Jesus only" churches—i.e., those who believe that God is only one person, playing three different roles—would argue that Matthew 28:19 has "name," singular, and that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since that creates immense problems all over the New Testament, we'll avoid suggesting that solution here. Instead, it seems to me that the commonly suggested idea that "in the name of" means "by the authority of" is surely correct. "In the name of" is used throughout the New Testament writings in ways that make it clear that saying the name is not what is indicated. We can receive a prophet in the name of a prophet and give a disciple water in the name of a disciple (Matt. 10:41,42), Jesus is praised as coming in the name of the Lord (Matt. 21:9; 23:39; etc.), the apostles taught in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18; 5:40; 9:27, etc.), and, in fact, everything, says Paul, is to be done in the name of Jesus (Col 3:17). Surely he does not mean that we are to pronounce the name of Jesus over the dishes as we do them!

No, when Paul commands the Thessalonians in the name of Jesus to withdraw from brothers who refused to work (2 Thess. 3:6ff), he is telling them that it's really Jesus who wants them to withdraw from such, not just Paul himself. A king that sends someone "in his name" as a messenger does not want the messenger to pronounce his name at the end of the message. He wants the messenger to make it clear that this is the word of the king, not just the word of the messenger or some other person. Even so, Jesus makes it clear to the apostles that it is the authority of the whole Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—with which they are baptizing. When the apostles went out, however, it was sufficient for Luke to inform us that they were baptizing on Jesus's authority and not their own. He is not telling us that Paul necessarily said, "In the name of Jesus," while he baptized the disciples of John in Acts 19. He is telling us that Paul baptized them by Jesus's authority and with Jesus's baptism rather than John's authority and baptism.

It is possible that when we do something on someone else's authority, we will make it clear by saying, "I'm doing this 'in the name of' so and so." Perhaps not. Perhaps we might say or do something different to show that we are acting on behalf of another. Thus, in baptism, it does not matter whether you say, "In the name of Jesus," or "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," or even whether you say nothing at all! If you have taught baptism to the person being baptized, then they already know—and you have already made it clear—that you are baptizing on behalf of another, Jesus the Christ.

One last argument remains to establish that it does not matter what you say, as long as you are actually baptizing by the authority of Christ, which is the very same authority as the whole trinity. That argument is the inspiration of Scripture. Both Matthew 28:19 and the Book of Acts have been received by the churches of God as authoritative Scripture from as far back as we can trace them. Scripture is inspired by God. It was God who left "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" for us to read in Matthew, and it was also God who left us "in the name of Jesus" to read about baptism in the Book of Acts. This was not an accident, oversight, or copyist error. It was the inspiration of God, who wanted us to know not to find one more petty and indefensible reason to argue and divide.

Home
Salvation Articles