19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
and make disciples of all the nations,
The command to reach “all the nations” is strikingly new here in that Jesus did not distinguish between Jew and Gentile. This change is a shift from ministry for the nation Israel to ministry for all peoples, Jew and Gentile alike.
It is important to understand that the command to “make disciples” governs the three functions (going, baptizing, and teaching). Each function elucidates what it means to make disciples. Making disciples covers the entire range of ministry, from initial presentation of the gospel to the maturation of believers.
baptizing them
After people “go,” they have two ministry functions: (1) baptizing and (2) teaching.
“Baptizing” is the second function that follows the command to “make disciples.” The idea is to “continually baptize them.” Baptism represents the initial step of obedience of faith.
in the name
This phrase is literally into the name. The idea of “into” implies two ideas: (1) an object or purpose and (2) union with. Baptism symbolically shows our positional union with Christ. Water baptism does not place a believer into union with Christ, but it is a symbol of the fact that the believer is already in union with Him.
The word “name” is singular, implying that the Trinity as a unit is one. Baptism identifies with God’s name (all that He represents).
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
We are to baptize in the name of the Trinity. For Jesus to be associated with the oneness of the Trinity shows His deity.
PRINCIPLE:
Our baptism proclaims our union with Christ.
APPLICATION:
Baptism does not save a person’s soul, but the Lord commanded it as essential proclamation of a person’s identity with Him. There is no rationale for not being baptized, for it is the important symbol of association with Christ. New believers should be baptized as soon as possible.
Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
Acts 8:38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
Acts 9:18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Acts 19:3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
I am still confuse which baptism is the correct one, if trinity is right, Peter is wrong and Acts 19:5.
Acts 2:38 'Baptism in Jesus name.' there is 'NO god the son' in the bible; NO god the holy spirit in the bible; NO 'trinity' in the bible.
Emma, thanks for your blog.
I see no relation to the Scriptures you use and your conclusions.
There are many terms we use today for concepts in the Bible that are not in the Bible per se. The question is not whether the term is there but whether the idea is taught in Scripture. For example, the predicate nominative where you have both the word "God" and the word "Word" in the same case (nominative) in John 1:1 indicates that the Word is God. The word "was" is the absolute state of being term EIMI. Thus, that passage indicates without equivocation that the Word was God Himself.
I'm surprised that you didn't me ntion this is another case of interpolation of the Church of Rome. The original words of Christ, "in my name" have been struck out and the trinitarian phrase replaced in its stead.
Jerry, There is no manuscript evidence for the denial of the Trinitarian baptismal formula here. The problem is an apparent misreading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text.
Others accept the shorter reading on other grounds:
Note discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.[1]
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series (a series of published dissertations)
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series (a series of published dissertations)
[1] Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Mt 28:19). Biblical Studies Press.
Also, since this is a devotional I do not always explain manuscript problems except when there is a significant impact on interpretation.
Thank you for the two sources, I read the reviews of both and would love to have them in my hands right now 🙂