IS THE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS, OR IN
THE NAME OF THE TRINITY?
In the book of
Acts, it says in every case a baptism occurs, that it was done in the ‘Name of
Jesus’:
And Peter
said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit.”
Acts 2:38 (See
also Acts 8:16; 19:5; and others).
Even though in
Matthew 28:19, a detailed command by Jesus Himself orders Baptism to be
celebrated under the Name of the ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’.
CONTROVERSY
Since early
times, and most recently after the birth of the ‘Jesus Only Movement’ or modern
Modalism; it has been claimed by them, that the formula described in Matthew
28:19 is a later addition to the text, and therefore, the only valid baptism would
be under the ‘Name of Jesus’ as mentioned in the book of Acts.
ANALYZING
MATTHEW
28:19
A theory was
presented that considered Matthew 28:19, a 4th century addition to
the Gospel, but that is only a speculation.
Since we have no
manuscripts from before the Council of Nicaea in 325; and all manuscripts in
existence, without exception contain the Trinitarian formula, it was proposed
that all manuscripts in existence must have been changed to fit the decrees of
the Trinitarian Nicene Council.
However, to
alter every manuscript in existence would have been impossible. Not even the
Roman Emperor Diocletian (284-305), who tried to destroy all the copies of the
NT could do it, even having all the authority and means to attain it.
It is also said
that Eusebius of Caesarea quoted in some of his writings, Matthew 28:19 without
the Trinitarian formula. But Eusebius was known to quote freely from memory,
and indeed he quoted the full trinitarian version in the same set of writings,
to later write it again in the shorter form (1).
Furthermore,
Eusebius was an Arian sympathizer, and Arians baptized “In the Name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, which shows that he did not intend to
either negate or support the formula, since it was irrelevant to his faith (2).
All manuscripts
show the mention of the Trinity without exception, and thus is quoted in many
writings before the 4th century, like in the
Didache 7:1-4 (60-150);
First Apology of Justin Martyr, 61 (155); Against Heresies 3:17:1, by Ireneaus
(180); On Baptism, 13 by Tertullian (198), and many others.
BOOK OF ACTS
The book of Acts
is the only historical book of the NT. It narrates with great simplification, the
development of the first years of Christianity taking as reference St Paul’s
ministry, under the view of the author of the gospel of Luke.
It is intended
to give a general testimony that GOD accompanied the preaching of the Apostles
and first Christians, through miracles, and also give testimony of how the
Church developed from former Judaism into the modern religion it became
afterwards; and that is why only Judaizing Christians are mentioned as
opposition, as well as decisions against circumcision and eating habits.
Since Christian
baptism developed from the Jewish Mikvah, the Jewish ritual washing of sins;
which also was practiced by John the Baptist; the baptisms in Acts are
mentioned as celebrated ‘in the Name of Jesus’ to make clear that this new
Mikvah was a different one, who identified the baptized not only with his
repentance, but also with the life-death-and resurrection of Jesus to a new
life.
Indeed, the same
baptisms which are mentioned ‘In the Name of Jesus’ (Acts 8:16; 19:5), are also
mentioned as “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12; 10:48), or simply ‘Christ’
(Galatians 3:27); which indicate that it’s a reference to the type of baptism,
and not a detailed description of who it took place.
CONCLUSION
We cannot deny
the theory that some Christians may have celebrated baptisms in the Name of
Jesus alone, during the first century of Christianity, but that was one of many
irregularities that happened in those early years, where instruction was beginning,
and in the middle of persecutions and lack of communication, especially when
there was still not a fixed canon in force. But by the beginning of the second
century that had disappeared altogether, and looking back in perspective, we can
see, as the DIDACHE testifies, that the proper instruction coming from above,
was Matthew 28’s model and not Acts.
The mention of
baptism ‘In the Name of Jesus’ in the historical book of Acts, was not a
detailed description with theological binding, but a declaration that this ‘water’
ritual, was celebrated under the authority of Jesus of Nazareth, instead of
John the Baptist, or the Jewish Temple authorities.
Finally, it is
not the wording, but the intention which makes a Baptism real. Even if the Name
of the Trinity is mentioned or just the Name of Jesus, or the Name of YHWH, or
the Holy Spirit alone, it is valid if the intention is to do what JESUS commanded,
and no other, and done by another believing baptized Christian, on another
believing Christian convert.
Omar Flores.
(1)
Praise
to Constantine 16:8,
by Eusebius.
Baptism in the New Testament,
by
George Raymond Beasley-Murray,
1973, p.81.
(2)
Epistle
24 to Bishop Alexander of Antioch, by Pope Innocent I, 417.
Comments
Post a Comment