Matthew 28:19

[Leafrivermac]

Matthew 28:19 speaks of baptism "œin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"� while Acts and the Epistles speak of baptism "œin the name of Jesus Christ."� I just want us to consider the possible explanations as to why these two different phrases appear in Scripture.
First, one could say that the two phrases are contradictory and we must choose one over the other. This explanation violates two basic principles of biblical interpretation: (1) the inspiration of Scripture and (2) the unity of Scripture. Since the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, it does not contain error. Since the Bible is God"™s Word to humanity, it presents a unified message and does not contradict itself. Some people use a form of this argument by saying, "œI would rather obey the words of Jesus (in Matthew) than the words of Peter (in Acts)."� But this statement assumes that Scripture contradicts itself and that the apostles were in error. If this were the case, we would not be able to trust the Bible at all. If we cannot trust the apostles, it would be futile to appeal to the words of Jesus, for Jesus did not write any books of the Bible. We must trust Matthew"™s record of what Jesus said just as we must trust Luke"™s record in Acts and Paul"™s statements in his epistles.
Second, one could say that neither phrase describes the baptismal formula. If so, we have no biblical formula for water baptism. This is very unlikely in light of the importance of baptism, the need to distinguish Christian baptism from other types of baptism, the common-sense reading of the passages in question, and the universal Christian practice from the most ancient times of using a baptismal formula. Clearly, some sort of formula is necessary to identify baptism as baptism and to express its significance. This explanation makes the baptismal formula an irrelevant technicality. By similar reasoning, one could justify celebrating the Lord"™s Supper with cake and punch, performing baptism by sprinkling with milk, or even omitting the baptismal ceremony altogether. If the formula is irrelevant, baptism in any name or no name would be valid Christian baptism, which is absurd. Obviously, the spiritual significance of baptism is expressed by the formula used and the name invoked.
Third, one could say that the two phrases describe two completely different formulas, either of which is acceptable. This explanation faces some of the same problems as the preceding two, for it seems to make the Bible contradict itself and minimizes the Significance of the baptismal formula. It indicates that there can be conflicting methods of Christian initiation. But there is only one God and one message of salvation for all people (Romans 3:29-30). In particular, there is only one Christian baptism (Ephesians 4:5). In the final analysis, this explanation proves too much, for if Matthew and Acts present two different formulas, there is no evidence that the early church used both. Rather, it would appear that Jesus gave one formula but the early church consistently used another one, thereby disobeying the Lord from the start. Clearly, this conclusion is untenable.
Fourth, one could say that both phrases describe the same baptismal formula. This view preserves the inspiration, inerrancy, and unity of Scripture. It also rests upon two other important principles of biblical interpretation: (1) Scripture interprets Scripture and (2) truth has several witnesses. (2 Corinthians 13:1.) The former principle tells us that the best interpreter of a passage of Scripture is the rest of Scripture. The latter principle tells us that the truth, especially important points of doctrine and practice, can be established in several ways, not just by one isolatedtext. While every verse of Scripture is inspired of God and therefore authoritative, if someone builds a doctrine on one verse alone and cannot provide additional support in Scripture, it is likely that he is misinterpreting or misapplying that one verse. This harmonizing explanation suggests that we should start with the historical accounts in the Book of Acts and interpret Matthew 28:19 in light of them, rather than vice versa. In a situation where there are many witnesses, all of whom are trustworthy, we should rely foremost on the many witnesses that use similar language and then harmonize a lone witness that explains the matter from a somewhat different perspective. In connection with this point, we should note that the apostle Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). The question, "œMen and brethren, what shall we do?"� was addressed to all the apostles (Acts 2:37). If Peter had given an incorrect answer when he told the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), Matthew would have corrected him. Peter heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19, Matthew heard Peter speak Acts 2:38, and only about one or two weeks separated the two events. Clearly, both apostles understood that the two statements harmonized. Moreover, we must realize that the Gospel of Matthew was not written until long after the occurrence of the events recorded in Acts. Most scholars say Matthew was written about A.D. 62-63 or later. As the accounts in Acts show, prospective converts heard the preaching of the apostles concerning baptism in the name of Jesus before they heard oral traditions about the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19. And the early church practiced baptism in the name of Jesus on the authority of the apostles long before they were able to read the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew. In actual life, then, the church interpreted the words of Matthew 28:19 in light of their new-birth experience and historical practice, not vice versa. When the Gospel of Matthew was distributed, there is no evidence that thechurch changed its baptismal practice; instead they evidently understood Matthew 28:19 to be consistent with their existing practice.

[mudhead1s wife]

My explanation is when it says in Jesus Christ, that if you baptize in the name of Christ and you are recieving Christ you are recieving God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit which Christ prayed to the Father and the Spirit was given unto us. It may seem contradictory unless you put it all together and know that they are all "One", in a sence if you baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you get all of them, yet since we know Christ you can baptize in the name of Christ and get the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Snooky]

Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
The Father plainly has a name, what is his name?
Heb, 1:4 The Son by inheritance hath obtained a more excellent name than they.
From whom did he inherit this name? From his Father.
John 5:43 I am come in my Fathers name.
What name did he come in? Call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins.
Eph 1:21 a name that is above every name that is named, not only in this world, but in the world that is to come.
Phil 2:10 at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess.
Eph 3:14-15 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family, (of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) in heaven and earth is named.
Acts 4:12 none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved.

[Leafrivermac]

We know that Jehovah or Yahweh was the revealed name of God in the Old Testament, but Jesus is the revealed name of God in the New Testament. However, the name Jesus includes Jehovah sinse Jesus means Jehovah Savior.
Father, Son, Holy Ghost all describe the one God, so the phrase in Mathew 28:19 simply describes the one name of the one God. The Old Testament promised that there would come a time when Jehovah would have one name and that this one name would be made known (Zechariah 14:9; Isaiah 52:6). We know that the one name of Mathew 28:19 is Jesus, for Jesus is the name of the Father (John 5:43; Hebrews 1:4), the Son (Mathew 1:21), and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). The New Testament church understood this to be so, for they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2;38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 1 Corinthians 1:13). Mathew himself endorced the interpretation by standing with Peter and the other apostles during the sermon in which Peter commanded the people to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:14-38).