Should we be baptized in Jesus' name (Acts 2:38), or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19)?

As to the formula used, some have supposed that because we read in the Acts that persons were baptised 'to the name of the Lord Jesus,' the instruction given in Matt. 28:19 to baptise "to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," was superseded. But this does not follow: baptism is always to some person or thing. The disciples found at Ephesus had been baptised to the baptism of John, Acts 19:3; the Israelites had been baptised to Moses; and those baptised in the Acts were to the name of the Lord Jesus as Saviour and Lord; and there is no reason why this should not be combined with the words found in Matthew, and a person be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In Acts 2:38 the preposition is ἐπί (ἐν in MSS B,C,D); in Acts 10:48 it is ἐν; and elsewhere it is εἰς.

In Matthew 28:19 we have the risen Lord conferring authority upon his disciples to baptize. He authorizes them to baptize “to (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This is the only place where the authorization is mentioned. The authority for Christian baptism is found here, and here alone. The risen Lord in issuing a commission to the eleven to go and disciple all the nations, authorizes them to formally identify the disciples of Christ with the confession of “the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” It is thus plain that baptism is a token, or mark, or badge, of discipleship to Christ. The badge of discipleship is put on by the baptism. The baptism signifies that the one baptized is connected with the profession of “the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Hence the formula “to,” (or “unto”) the name, and so forth.

Now in Acts 2, Peter, as one who had received authority to give the token or badge of discipleship to Christ, counsels the Jews (convicted of, and realizing their guilt in, having rejected and crucified Jesus the Christ) to accept the badge which he has authority to give them. He says, “Be baptized for (epi) the name of Jesus Christ.” This he urges, too, as the one only door open to them for forgiveness. Hence he goes on to say, “with a view to (eis) the remission of sins.” The One they have rejected is the only One who can forgive them. It plainly is not a question of the formula used in the act of baptizing, for as yet no one had been baptized. They were under conviction and had asked, “What shall we do?” They are told, “Take shelter under the name of Jesus Christ.” Peter and his fellow-apostles stood ready to put that name upon them. Subsequently the name of Jesus Christ was put on a great number of them. In baptizing them the apostles acted in the name of the risen Lord; He having authorized them to do so. This authorization we have seen was given in Matthew 28:19. Matthew 28:19 was not suspended, but carried out. They were baptized “to the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The apostles in so baptizing them were doing what they had authority for, and doing it by the authority of risen Lord: they acted in His name. For these conscience-stricken Jews, it was being authoritatively put under the shelter of the name of Jesus Christ with a view to the remission of their sins.

In Acts 8:16 and 19:5 we have the expression, when rightly rendered, “baptized to the name of the Lord Jesus.” But it is not a substitution of another formula. It is simply the fact that Christian baptism is to the name of the Lord Jesus, and it is necessarily so, since He is the One by whom the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were fully revealed. Baptism “to the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” is necessarily baptism to Him by whom the three persons of the Godhead were distinctly revealed. The expression, “baptized to the name of the Lord Jesus” cannot then be a new formula substituted in place of that of Matthew 28:19.

A. Our Lord, in the Gospel of Matthew, gives the formula according to which a disciple is to be baptized unto His death; and this in contrast with the Jewish confession of one God, even Jehovah. In Acts 2 it is said by Peter to be "upon the name of Jesus Christ." So in Acts 8:16, the Samaritan professors are said to have been baptized "unto the name of the Lord Jesus", as Cornelius and his household were "in his name." These are ways of describing baptism suitably to the Acts of the Apostles, where the Lordship of Jesus is one of the main objects. But there is no ground to doubt that Christian baptism was always formally "unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." To omit or change that which the Lord enjoined so solemnly in resurrection, is a bolder act than becomes a Christian. This, certainly, ought never to be left out, however right it may be to testify to His Lordship also.

To sum it up. Baptism in Christian times is to the name of the Trinity. It is by the authority of the risen Lord Jesus. Those who baptize therefore do so in His name. Baptism in His name may be spoken of, either as to the name of the Lord Jesus, or to the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

No Jew ever hears anything of the eternal relationship in the Godhead, but remains a stranger and an antagonist to the truth and privileges of Christianity. For its principle is involved in those words, and indeed more explicitly in the words expressed in Christian baptism, the only authoritative formula for which is "unto the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Not that one would leave out the name of the Lord Jesus; but the right form is so clearly stated by our Lord that one may doubt that their omission leaves valid baptism. It appears anything but the reverence due to the words of our risen Lord. The argument founded on the historic mention of baptism throughout the Acts of the Apostles is without bearing, because none of these professes to give the actual formula employed. The only apparent exception which ostensibly supplies it has not the smallest authority. For it is certain and commonly acknowledged that Acts 8:37 is spurious. There at least Philip is supposed to ask of the Ethiopian treasurer a confession of his faith, which the latter renders. But all this must be given up as a gloss of an imaginary kind, and not really in the ancient MSS. It was probably a marginal note which crept into the text by a later scribe who fancied it to be part of the original. But in the Acts of the Apostles there is really no formula of baptism, and therefore no right ground for dispensing with our Lord's injunction. And the hypothesis of its being provided for a future Jewish remnant consists neither with "all the nations" concerned as said immediately before, nor with the spiritual condition of that remnant whose knowledge it quite transcends.

We believe that Matthew 28:19 furnishes the proper formula for Christian baptism. We are not aware of any subsequent revelation on the subject. “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Here we have the full revelation of the Godhead, the true foundation of Christian doctrine. We see no reason for departing from the form of words prescribed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Is not His commandment more binding upon us than the example of any or all of His servants?

Here, Father, Son and Holy Ghost in one name are alike invoked over each candidate for baptism.

It would be a mistake to take the words, 'In the name of Jesus Christ,' or, 'Unto the name of the Lord Jesus,' as a formula. There is much implied in baptism which is not expressed in the formula used, such as moral cleansing, salvation, and being planted in the likeness of Christ's death; but to me the real formula is in the words of our Lord, in Matt. 28. But then His Lordship is distinctly connected with it there; for He states that all power is given to Him in heaven and earth, though baptism only refers to His authority as administered upon earth. The form of this administration on earth, so far as Scripture tells us, has not been carried out yet according to Matt. 28, but according to Luke, and in the way described in the Acts. Still our Lord's words remain, that baptism was to be in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." T. H. Reynolds.

Connected with this viewpoint is, first baptism, the outward sign of discipleship into the kingdom; and secondly, teaching. The Lord speaks in Matthew l6:19 of giving Peter the key of the kingdom of heaven; and in Luke11:52 He refers to" the key of knowledge" which the Pharisees had taken away from the people. The teaching of the truth of the word of God then is one of the. keys, while baptism appears plainly to be the other key. Both of these Peter used in opening the door of the kingdom to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10). The Lord clearly gives the formula for baptism here as being" in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is not set aside by the fact of the disciples' baptizing "unto the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 2:38; 19:5), for this latter expression, though it emphasizes the importance of the name of the Lord Jesus, does not necessarily imply the formula that was used while the Lord's formula ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") would by all means include what is expressed in Acts.

As to the formulary, the variation in the terms, εἰς the name of Jesus, the Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, are a plain proof that these words are not the formulary at all, which I think our good friends have overlooked. Next, remark that they had no direction to baptise at all, save the commission in Matthew (though at the same time that was only to the Gentiles). But as none other is given, I always use that of Matthew - yet invariably, before this question arose, bringing in the special recognition of the Lord Jesus, as the One to whom the child was as baptised. But there is little scriptural light on the subject, our place being the gathering of the faithful into the consciousness of their place in the midst of a great baptised house. St. Paul was not sent to baptise, so that we have, as united in one Body, no commission. It is not abrogated, and we take it up as we find it, as Paul did. The attempt to set right this way fails. Peter and the others began, even with Cornelius - namely, a Gentile - with the names of the Lord. Yet the command as to the nations, of which this was the first specimen, is in Matthew 28. Samaritans, who were not Jews, were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and it is hard to see how they went clean against Matthew 28, even if baptism of the Jews is said to be another, which I can not admit, because "there is … one baptism." Hence I conclude that "the Lord Jesus," "Jesus," gives merely the thought and bearing of the baptism - that it was in His name, under His authority and owning Him it was done - but "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," the full truth to which they were baptised. It is by Him we have the knowledge of the Trinity; the Father and the Holy Ghost through and with Himself. That which some took up, that the commission of Matthew dropped and Paul's began afresh for the Gentiles, has no application here, because Jesus Christ, and the Lord, are used before that was the case. Acts 2:38 shews it began thus. But the name of Jesus Christ is only as owning Him and by His authority - the confession of Jesus Christ. Here it is ἐπί, not εἰς; in other places εἰς, as chapter 8:16; ἐν, chapter 10:48, shewing, I judge, that it was more the nature and purport of the baptism than the form. Hence, my habit is to immerse unless there is special hindrance, or, at any rate, standing in the bath pour water over them, using both the name of the Lord Jesus, and the words of Matthew 28. I am not aware of any special connection of the term Lord and (the) House; Lord and servants seems to me the more scriptural correlation. The importance is that it is individual, which is not without its weight. We are a habitation of God through the Spirit. Christ is as Son over the House, but that is another idea from Lord, though of course He be Lord of all.