Q. “F.D.” How was it that neither Jews nor Gentiles were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — the formulary in Matthew 28:1919Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19)? Compare Acts 2:38; 10:4838Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:48); and 19:5, etc.
A. When the commission of Matthew 28 was given, the Lord Jesus Christ was present on earth. (He is not seen as ascended in Matthew). And the commission to baptize is founded on resurrection only, not ascension; which (ascension into glory) brings in the body of Christ, formed by the Holy Spirit, sent down from heaven.
In Acts He was absent in heaven, and some, in finding the formulary of Matthew 28 not given in Acts, have supposed that the formulary was then changed to the name of Jesus. This I believe to be a mistake. First, because Acts being, generally speaking, historical and not doctrinal scripture (though equally inspired), doctrines could not be founded on it! while at the same time it confirms doctrines given elsewhere. Next, the formulary once given is not changed nor intended to be changed, and is to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — the Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead, as we know the one true God in Christianity. For Christianity is the revelation of not only the unity of the Godhead, as in the Old Testament, but also the Trinity of the Persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The point in Acts is the recognition of Jesus as Lord when absent; and hence this reference to His name where the cases are recorded — the persons baptized owning Him, being presented to Him thus.
It is striking, however, to notice how that in nearly every case recorded, the Holy Spirit has seen fit to change the words, and even the prepositions — I have no doubt to prevent (with other reasons) its being taken up as a formulary. In Acts 2:3838Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38), it is, “In (ἑπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:1616(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (Acts 8:16), it is, “In (ἑις) the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:4848And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:48), it is, “In (ἑν) the name of the Lord.” In Acts 19:55When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5), it is, “In (ἑις) the name of the Lord Jesus.”
I believe the formulary of Matthew 28:1919Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19) to be the correct and only true one which should be used, and when used, I should in addition recognize the Lordship of Christ, presenting the person to Him as such.
Words of Truth 7:59, 60.