Introduction

All Christians quite naturally use the name of the Lord Jesus Christ when they pray. When demons are cast out and miracles are performed, usually this is also done in the name of Jesus Christ. This is on the basis of such Scriptures as Colossians 3:17, John 14:14, Acts 3:6, 18:16 and Mark 9:39. However, many people who may say, “in the name of Jesus Christ” when praying, etc. do not use that name when they baptise. Instead they baptise someone while speaking the words, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, because that is what Jesus apparently told his disciples in Matthew 28.19.

The words which are spoken while someone descends under water when baptised are known as a baptismal formula. We should all agree that using a certain form of words cannot save anyone, and in fact someone who is not baptised can be saved. This is because it is not the water that saves (1 Peter 3:21) but the grace of God (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 3:24) received by faith (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 3:22) and repenting from sin (Luke 13:3, 24:47). We also know this is true because when Jesus was crucified, the dying thief was saved (Luke 23:40-43), yet was not baptised. However, baptism is still very important and should be done in obedience to God and because it represents death to self, burial and resurrection to new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4, 1 Peter 3:21). It is a public testimony to an inward work of the grace of God in our lives.

So then, what are the words that should be spoken as a baptismal formula, if any? There are several views regarding this, and these are summarised below:

1. It doesn’t matter at all which words are spoken as a baptismal formula.

2. The baptismal formula should be “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

3. There is no baptismal formula. Only an explanation and testimony need to be given when a person is baptised.

4. The baptismal formula should be “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”.

Each of these views is examined in this study in sections 1 to 4. Finally, several objections to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ are answered.

1 Does it matter what words are spoken as a baptismal formula?

The question may be asked, is God really serious about us obeying exactly what he says? To answer this we will consider what happened to a few people who did not do exactly as God instructed them:

Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:6) of which God had told Adam not to eat (Gen. 2:17). Because of this God judged them (Gen. 2:16-17) and sin entered the whole world (Romans 5:12).

● Lot and his family were told not to look back when escaping from Sodom (Gen 19:17). Lot’s wife looked back and became a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26). So she was judged for her disobedience to God’s word.

● Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. (Lev. 10:1-2). So God judged them for doing something he commanded them not to do.

● When the children of Israel complained in the desert of Sin about a lack of water (Num. 20:1-5), the LORD told Moses to speak ye unto the rock (v.8), but Moses smote the rock twice (v.11). God punished this disobedience by keeping Moses and Aaron from entering the promised land (Num. 20:12, 24-26, Deut. 32:48-52, 34:4-5).

● Uzzah touched the ark of God to prevent it from falling. He then died (2 Sam 6:6-7) because God had instructed its bearers not to touch it (Num. 4:15).

God has not changed (James 1:17, Mal 4:6) and he still brings judgement upon those who disobey his word. The Bible says, To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17). If we truly love God, we will obey him:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:2-3)

Some people may say, “it’s not important that particular words are spoken while someone’s baptised.” But the Bible teaches us that words are important:

Death and life are in the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21)

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:37)

So life and death, justification and condemnation can come as a result of words spoken. The Bible does not say we live by some of God’s word but by every word of God (Matthew 4:4). The following Scriptures state that every word of God is the truth:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psalms 12:6)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him (Proverbs 30:5).

Not only is every word of God true, but God will also not alter his word (Psalms 89:34). He has instructed us not to add to his words (Deut. 4:2, 12:32, Prov. 30:6) lest we be reproved and found to be liars (Prov. 30:6) and suffer plagues (Rev.22:18). Neither are we to take away from God’s word (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), otherwise our part will be taken from the Book of Life (Rev. 22:19). So the words spoken as we are baptised are important, and one day our work of baptism will be tried by fire (1 Cor. 3:13), which is symbolic of God’s word (Jer. 23:29, John 12:48). If it has not been done correctly, it will be burned up and we will lose part of our reward (1 Cor. 3:15).

Another way of looking at the importance of the method of baptism is this. A cheque must be signed correctly or it cannot be paid in. In the same way, if baptism is not done correctly, it will not be recognised.

In summary, it matters what words are spoken as a person is baptised.

Should Matthew 28:19 be used as a baptismal formula?

Go 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).

Many Christians who baptise people repeat the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as a baptismal formula, believing that they are following Jesus’ command. But is this correct?

The phrase in the name in this verse is translated from the Greek eis to onoma. We note two things about this phrase, firstly the preposition, eis (translated “in” in this verse), and secondly, what is known as the case of the phrase:

 a The preposition “eis”

The preposition used in the phrase in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are the Greek word eis. Eis primarily mean “into” and concerns movement from the outside to the inside something. It can also mean “in”, “as far as”, “for”, “for the purpose of”, or “to” depending on the context. There are other prepositions which mean “by”, “with” or “using” as we shall see later, but the preposition eis never means “by”, “with” or “using”. This is what it would have to mean if this verse was intended to mean that the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” should be said as someone is baptised.

b “The name” – accusative case

The words to onoma indicate that this phrase is in the accusative case (in fact the preposition eis is only ever followed by an accusative case) which means that the name is the direct object. In simple terms that everyone should understand, “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is the thing being baptised into, not what is used to baptise with. If the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is what should be used to baptise with, the dative case (the instrumental case), the words “to onomati” would have been used in Matthew 28:19.

The name here is the direct object, not the instrument of baptism. So the construction of the phrase in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost proves that we are not to be baptised using the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost but that we are baptised into that name.

The preposition and the case used in Matthew 28:19 are two reasons why this is not a baptismal formula. What does it really mean then, to be baptised into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?

Name means character

We will see from the following examples in Scripture that the word “name” can mean “character”.

The name Jacob means “heel_catcher” (Genesis 25:26). It also means “supplanter” because Jacob supplanted his brother Esau to take away his birthright and his blessing (Gen. 27:36). Later, he wrestled with God and prevailed (Gen. 32:24_5), and God changed his name to Israel, saying to him, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. (Gen. 32:28). So the name “Israel” can be translated “prince with God”, “soldier of God” and “one who wrestles with God”. Jacob’s name was changed to suit his character.

Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas (John 1:42), translated Peter (Petros in Greek, Luke 6:14) which means “a stone”, or “a piece of rock” (Note that Christ is called the rock in 1 Cor. 10:4. The word here in Greek is Petra, meaning a large foundation rock, so Christ is the unchangeable solid rock.) His character was at times changeable like a rolling stone, for example when he denied Christ (Mt. 27:69-75). At other times he was solid like rock, for example when he confessed Jesus to be the Christ (Matthew 16:16) and when he preached boldly on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). So Peter’s character was revealed by his name.

Another example of a person whose name revealed his character is Nabal whose name means “folly”. His wife Abigail said of him as his name is, so is he (1 Sam. 25:25). He was a foolish man, so his name reflected his character.

The most commonly used name for God in the Old Testament is Yahweh, which is translated LORD or Jehovah in our English Bibles. It means “self_existing one”, and reveals the character of God.

Another name by which God was known was Elohim Yireh, meaning God will provide (Gen. 22:8,14) because God provided a ram for the burnt offering instead of Isaac. God reveals his character by supplying all our need by Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:19), and Jesus revealed God’s character by providing food for the hungry (Mt. 14:15_21), life for the dead (Mt. 9:25, Mark 5:41-2), and himself as a sacrifice for sin (Eph. 5:2, Heb. 7:27). Yet another name for God, Yahweh Rapha, means “the Lord heals”. God revealed this attribute of his character when he said I am the Lord that healeth thee (Exodus 15:26).

Therefore, in the Bible, someone’s name signifies their character. So when Jesus instructed the twelve to baptise new converts into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit he meant they were to baptise or immerse them into the character of God. This baptism is also said to be into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16, 19:5), into Christ (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27), into his death and burial (Rom. 6:3-4) and resurrection (1 Peter 3:21). For those doing the baptising this involves teaching and demonstrating the Word of God as well as baptising people in water. For those being baptised this involves dying with Christ (2 Cor. 4.11, Gal.2.20, Col. 2.20, 2 Tim. 2.11), crucifying the old man, the flesh and sinful desires (Rom. 6.6, Gal. 5.24). This takes place through obedience in thought (2 Cor. 10.5), word and deed (Rom. 15.18) as God’s Word is written on our hearts (2 Cor. 3.3) and we learn to observe all things Jesus commanded (Mt. 28.20). It results in being dead to sin (Rom. 6.2-11), Christ living in us (2 Cor. 4.11, Gal. 2.20), and  righteousness (1 Peter 2.24). Water baptism is the outward symbol or type of spiritual baptism, representing it until it has fully taken place. Whenever water baptism is performed, an explanation of this spiritual baptism should be given, in which Matthew 28:19 may be quoted, but not as a baptismal formula.

Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not names

You may call someone on earth your “father” or your “son”. You may even call someone “the father” of his children or “the son” of his father. But do you ever say that the name of any person on earth is “the father” or “the son”? No, of course you don’t. Names, when given to people are always used to both uniquely identify them and address them with. There are no capital letters in the Greek from which our English New Testament is translated. The terms the Father and the Son in Matthew 28:19 do not uniquely identify anyone because they are indistinguishable from “the father” and “the son” without the capital “F” and “S”. Thus “the Father” and “the Son” are  not really names.

The term the Holy Ghost is more specific but is still not a name. Yes, God is a spirit (John 4:24) and that spirit is holy. However, I am a human being and I am living; yet “living human being” is not my name! Often he is called the Holy Ghost, the Spirit or the Spirit of God because that is what he is; there is only one who is holy, and God is a spirit. So the Holy Ghost uniquely identifies him as God (whereas “living human being” does not uniquely identify a particular person). A name can also be used by anyone to address any other person with. It would be ridiculous for anyone to ever address Jesus or the Holy Ghost by saying, for example, “thank you, Son” or “thank you, Holy Ghost”! So the Son is not a name and neither is the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit a name.

Would you ever say to anyone “my name is father”, “my name is son” or “my name is husband”? Of course not, so in the same way there is no record in the Bible that God ever said “my name is the Father” or “my name is the Son” or “my name is the Holy Ghost”. If he had done, we could accept that these are names. In Isaiah 9:6 it is said of Jesus that his name would be called the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God etc. Nevertheless, in this verse it does not just say “the Father” or “God”, so we cannot say that “the Father” or “God” are names on the basis of Isaiah 9:6. Of course to his children God is the Father, and to God the Father, Jesus was his only begotten Son but that still does not mean “the father” and “the son” are names!

Furthermore, if the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost were names we would have expected it to say “names” in Matthew 28:19. Nowhere in Scripture can we find any phrases such as “three names of God” or “the names of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost”. In Matthew 28:19 it says name not “names”; there is only one name in which we can be baptised. Since the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not names then we need to find out what the name is in which we are to be baptised. This will be discussed in section 4.

At the end of Mark and Luke’s gospels we find the expressions in my name (Mark 16:17) and in his name (Luke 24:47). If Jesus had used either of these expressions in Mt. 28:19 then would those who baptise others have just repeated Jesus’ words by saying “I baptize you in his name” or “I baptize you in my name”? No! If they had any sense they would obey Jesus’ exact words, and understand whom he was speaking about. They would baptize in his name by saying “I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”.

A “title” is used to indicate the office, rank, occupation, etc. of a person. So it would be more accurate to say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are titles rather than names.

Signing a cheque

Assume for once that it was sufficient to recite the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” while baptising someone. Then why not try signing a cheque next time in the name of “the father, and of the son and of the husband” if that is what you are? It would bounce, of course, because although you may be all three of these (these are three of your ranks or occupations, i.e. titles perhaps), this is not your name. (Similarly, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost may be termed “titles” but are not names).

If your name was Matthew Paul Smith, you would sign cheques “Matthew Paul Smith”, because that is your name, even though you may still be a father, son and husband. You might sign cheques “M Smith” or “Matthew P Smith” but that may be confused with another M Smith or Matthew Smith; it is not the precise form of words that is so important as that you are uniquely identified as Matthew Paul Smith so you are not confused with another father, son and husband.

In the same way, in the Bible, believers were baptised in a particular name (see section 4), but not always using identical words. The exact wording of the baptismal formula is not as important as the person whose name is used, and that he is uniquely identified so there is no confusion with someone else who has a similar name.

Two or three witnesses

There is another final piece of evidence which shows that Matthew 28:19 isn’t a baptismal formula. According to Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, John 8:17 and 2 Cor. 13:1 there must be two or three witnesses to establish anything. However, there are not two or three witnesses to show that Matthew 28:19 is a baptismal formula. If we are to rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) we cannot base a doctrine on only one Scripture such as Matthew 28:19, without considering other passages. In section 4, we will consider other passages of scripture which tell us what the baptismal formula is.

Summary

The command that Jesus gave to baptise into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19) may be quoted during an explanation of the significance of baptism when a person is baptised. We have seen, however, that this is not a baptismal formula. It only tells us that we are to be immersed into the character of the whole Godhead, of which water baptism is a small part, a type, or a representation.

The wording in Matthew 28:19 was first used as a baptismal formula many years after the New Testament was written. Some scholars admit that the only basis for using Mt. 28:19 as a baptismal formula is tradition and not the Bible.

 3 Do we need to use a baptismal formula at all?

Some people believe that in the early church, no baptismal formula was used at all. Of course, the words spoken as a person is baptised are not as important as the meaning of baptism itself. But we will see in the next section of our study that a baptismal formula was used in the early church. Not using a baptismal formula when a people is baptised does not, of course, prevent the person from being saved, because baptism does not save a person as has already been said. However, if nothing is spoken as a person is baptised, it would not be clear to observers why the person is being baptised, and who they are to be spiritually baptised into. It would be like trying to pay by cheque without signing the cheque.

4 Should baptism be in the name of Jesus Christ?

There are two verses in Scripture where it is recorded that believers were baptised using the name of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Then 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)

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:48)

In Acts 2.38, the Greek phrase translated in the name is epi to onomati, and the phrase in the name used in Acts 10:48 is translated from the Greek phrase en to onomati. The only difference between these two phrases is the preposition used: in Acts 2:38 the preposition is epi (upon) and in Acts 10:48 the preposition is en (in). Again, we will discuss the prepositions and case used in these phrases.

a The prepositions “epi” and “en”

The word epi which is used in Acts 2:38 in the Greek primarily means “upon”. It can also be used to mean “on”, “in”, “by”, “at”, “on account of” or “with a view to”. There are many Scriptures other than just Acts 2:38 where this exact phrase epi to onomati is used such as:

i. Luke 10:17. Demons were subject to the disciples through his name (Greek: epi to onomati sou). They must have spoken the name of Jesus Christ, as many people do today when casting out demons.

ii. People call upon the name (Greek: epi to onomati) of the Lord (Acts 15:17, 22:16, Rom. 10:17, 1 Cor. 1:2). This must involve speaking the name of Jesus Christ.

iii. For many shall come in my name (Greek: epi to onomati) saying “I am Christ” and shall deceive many (Mt. 24:5, Mk. 13:6 & Lk. 21:8). The Bible does not just say that these people will claim to come in the name of Jesus or claim to come in his authority; it says that they come in his name. These people are deceivers, so they cannot come in the authority of Christ or in his character. Therefore the phrase in my name here cannot mean “in my authority” or “into my character”. These verses therefore expressly indicate that these people will speak the name of Christ and leave us with little doubt that the phrase epi to onomati can mean “using the name”.

In these Scriptures we can see that the phrase upon the name implies speaking the name of Jesus and means “using the name”. Often in the Bible, except in Scriptures such as those mentioned in (iii) above, the phrase can mean “in the authority”. However, this does not do away with the fact that it also can mean “using the name” implying speaking the name. This is because anyone who comes in the authority of another person will always give the credit to that person by naming them, probably by speaking the phrase “in the name of” then the person’s name.

In Acts 10:48, the preposition used in Greek is en, primarily meaning “in”, but also meaning “by”, “among”, “with”, “into”, “for” or “under the influence of”. Other things that can be done en to onomati (in the name) of Jesus Christ include the following:

● Asking for something from the Father (John 14:13, 14:14, 15:16, 16:23-6, James 5:14)

● Casting out demons (Mark 9:38, 16:17, Luke 10:17, Acts 16:18)

● Preaching (Acts 9:27, 29)

● Healing the sick (Acts 3:6, 4:10)

In all these verses, the phrase en to onomati is used, and clearly means “using the name” (which usually involves speaking the name) as well as “in the authority”. Some Gentiles were baptised en to onomati of the Lord (Acts 10:48), so it follows that they were baptised using, or while speaking the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Lord (1 Cor. 8:6).

It is significant that the prepositions epi (upon) and en (in) are sometimes used interchangeably in Scripture. For example in Mark 9.38, the word en is used in the Greek, but in the parallel passage in Luke 9.49, the word epi is used. So when it is said that people were baptised upon the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord the meaning is the same. The name of Jesus was used and there is every reason to believe that these actual words were spoken.

 b “The name” – dative case

Further evidence that the use of the phrases epi to onomati (upon the name) and en to onomati (in the name) implies speaking the name can again be found by considering the case of this phrase. In Greek, to onomati is the dative case. This is the instrumental or locative case and is used to express the means by which something is carried out or the position in which something is located. In Acts 2:38, the name of Jesus Christ was therefore an instrument to be used during baptism. In Acts 10:48, the name of the Lord was an instrument. This must mean that the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), or the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48) who is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6) was spoken as these early Christians were baptised.

So in the early church, believers were baptised while the name of the Lord Jesus was spoken. Paul taught us to be followers of him (1 Cor. 4:16, 11:1, Phil. 4:17, 1 Thess. 1:6). In Phil. 4:9 he says, Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and seen in me, do. In 1 Cor. 4:16 he instructs Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his ways which be in Christ. If we want to do what the Bible says, we will therefore do the same as the early church did and be baptised while the words in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are spoken.

The phrase “in the name of the Jesus Christ” was written or spoken on other occasions

Several times in the Bible it is recorded that Paul and Peter actually spoke or wrote the words, in the name (Greek: en (to) onomati) of Jesus Christ:

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name

(Greek: en to onomati) of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. (Acts 3:6)

But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name

(Greek: en to onomati) of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. (Acts 16:18)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name (Greek: en onomati) of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thess. 3:6)

Every Christian would use these same words in these situations. Since these words in the name of Jesus Christ were used in healing, casting out demons and in a command to withdraw from disorderly people they can surely be used when baptising people too.

All things are to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus

In Colossians 3:17, we are told to do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. The phrase in the Greek here translated in the name is en onomati and is in the dative or instrumental case. This often means “in the authority”, but it can also mean “using the name” as we have just seen. This verse surely means that everything should be done in the authority of the Lord Jesus and using his name. This would include baptism.

Note, however, that the word all does not always mean absolutely everything. We can see this from verses such as 1 John 2:20, ye know all things, 1 Cor. 13:7, charity…believeth all things, and Col. 3:22, servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh. It is clear that of ourselves we do not know absolutely everything, love does not believe absolutely everything including lies and servants should not obey their masters if they tell them to do something the Bible tells them not to do. Similarly, we would not say “in the name of the Lord Jesus” when we do absolutely everything including eating, going to work, etc. However, there is no reason to believe that baptism is also an exception and that this should not be done while saying the words “in the name of the Lord Jesus”.

It could also be said on the basis of Col 3:17 that in anything we do we should consider whether the Lord Jesus would do it.

Significance of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

The name of God is very important. It is forbidden to take God’s name in vain (Ex. 20:7, Deut. 5:11), profane it (Lev. 18:21, 19:12 etc.) or swear falsely by it (Lev. 19:12). Under the Old Covenant, those who blasphemed it were to be put to death (Lev. 24:16).

All God’s children call upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26, 12:8, 13:4, 26:25, 1 Kings 18:24, 2 Kings 5:11, Joel 2:32, Rom. 10:13, 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.). We are to fear his name (Deut. 28:58), sing praises to his name (2 Sam 22:50, Ps. 18:49, 68:4) and glorify his name (Ps. 86:9, 2 Thess. 1:12, Rev. 15:4). The Temple was built for his name (1 Kings 5:5, 8:17-20) and his name was put in it and in Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:3, 2 Kings 21:7, 23:27). The Old Testament priests were to minister and bless in the name of the Lord (Deut. 18:5,7).

God said that his name was “I Am” (Ex. 3:13-14) and “Jehovah” (Ex. 6:3, Ps. 83:18 – more correctly, “Yahweh”, often translated “LORD” in our English Bible). Jesus came in the name of the Lord or Yahweh (Mt. 21:9, 23:39, Mark 11:9-10, Lk. 13:35, 19:38, John 12:13) and in his Father’s name (Jn. 5:43). He did work in his Father’s name (Jn. 10:25) and manifested or declared his Father’s name (Jn. 17:6, 26). The Son of God, Jesus, said that anyone who did not believe that he himself was “I Am” would die in their sins (John 8:24). In fact, the name “Jesus” means “Saviour” (Mt. 1:21) and there is no other name by which we can be saved:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)

The gospel is preached in the name of Jesus Christ (Lk. 24:47, Acts 8:12, 9:27,29). If we believe in (i.e. rely on and trust in) (John 1:12, 3:18, 1 Jn. 5:13) or call on his name (Acts 2:21, 22:16, Rom. 10:13) we are saved. We have life through the name of Jesus (John 20:31) and we are washed, sanctified and justified in his name (1 Cor. 6:11). The name of Jesus Christ is above every name, more excellent than the angels (Phil. 2:9, Heb 1:4). Eventually, every knee shall bow at his name (Phil. 2:10). So the name of Jesus is absolutely essential.

Other things that are done in the name of Jesus Christ are prayer (Jn 14:13-14, 15:16, 16:23-6), healing (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 3:6,16, 4:10) and casting out demons (Mark 16:17, Lk 10:17, Acts 16:18). Jesus’ name was so important to the early Christians that they suffered and died for that name (Acts 5:41, 15:26, 21:13). We too, may be reproached for his name (1 Peter 4:14).

The church in Pergamos was praised for holding fast the name of Jesus (Rev. 2:13) and the church in Philadelphia was praised for not denying the name of Jesus (Rev. 3:8). Will we be praised for holding fast the name of the Lord Jesus, or will we deny his name, including rejecting baptism in his name?

So we are saved through the name of Jesus and by believing in his name. We can pray, preach the gospel, heal the sick and cast out demons in his name. The name of Jesus Christ is very important and there is therefore every reason to believe that we are to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Being baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is symbolic of taking on his name and being identified with him.

Two or three witnesses

As has already been said, according to Deut. 19:15, Matthew 18:16, John 8:17 and 2 Cor. 13:1, two or three witnesses are needed to prove every teaching. There is no other witness for using a formula based on Matthew 28:19 but there are two witnesses for the formula “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”: Acts 2:38 and 10:48. Both phrases en to onomati (in the name) and epi to onomati (upon the name) used in these respective Scriptures are in the dative case. This shows that the name is one of the instruments of baptism, or what is used to baptise with.

The fact that it is the Lord in Acts 10:48 and Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38 is quite understandable; the words themselves are not as important as the person represented by the words. This has been explained already in the section “Signing a cheque” on page . It is important though that we don’t just say  “in the name of Jesus”. Otherwise this might cause confusion about which Jesus we mean, because there are many people in the world called Jesus, as there also were in Bible times (Colossians 4:11). To avoid any possible misunderstanding it is best to say “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Further witnesses are provided by Colossians 3:17 and the words in the name of Jesus Christ being spoken and written on other occasions (Acts 3:6, 16:18 and 2 Thess. 3:6). In the Bible, the name associated with both spiritual and physical baptism is always (except in Mt. 28.19) the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: Saul was baptised calling upon (Greek: epi) the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). In Acts 8.16 and 22.16, baptism was into (Greek: eis) the name of the Lord Jesus and in Rom. 6.3 and Gal. 3.27 it is stated that we are baptised into (Greek eis) Christ.

Summary

We have seen from Scripture that “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” was the baptismal formula used by the early church and that should be used today.

Objections to baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ answered

Seeing there is so much evidence in Scripture to show that we should be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, why do some people object to it? In this section, we answer many of their objections.

Could “name” just mean “authority”?

Some Christians believe the word name simply means “authority” in the phrases in the name of the Lord or in the name of Jesus Christ used in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus they attempt to say that such phrases were not spoken  as a person was baptised.

According to W E Vine (W E Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, HarperCollins, UK, Hendrickson or Nelson, USA, p.780), apart from meaning the same as the English word “name”, “that by which a person or thing is called”, the Greek word for name, “onoma”, is also used “for all that a name implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that the name covers”. This word therefore means more than simply “authority”, so it is incorrect to say that the word name in Acts 2:38 and 10:48 only means “authority”.

The same phrase epi to onomati (upon the name) is used as the basis on which deceivers come who say “I am Christ” (Mt. 24:5, Mk. 13:6 & Lk. 21:8) as has already been said on page . These people cannot be coming in Christ’s authority, because he has not given it to them; they only come presumptuously claim to come in his authority. Thus, in these verses, the phrase epi to onomati can only mean actually speaking the phrase “in the name”. Therefore it is quite possible that the phrase in the name in Acts 10:48 means speaking that phrase, in addition to meaning “in the authority”.

So it is incorrect to insist that “name” just means “authority” and thus claim that in the name of Jesus Christ just means “in the authority of Jesus Christ.”

Are accounts of baptisms in the Bible not always applicable?

Some people have suggested another reason why the early church baptised people in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) or in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48) after Jesus had commanded them to baptise into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).

This reason is that the baptisms recorded in Acts were of Jews or religious Gentiles who already believed in the Father but had not known the Lord Jesus. So it is claimed that the early church was content to use the name of the Lord Jesus alone when baptising Jews or religious Gentiles. It is also claimed that Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 included the Father and the Spirit because it was given for all nations. It is then reasoned that all nations means nonreligious Gentiles alone and therefore the command in Matthew 28:19 only applied to previously nonreligious Gentiles (According to Encyclopaedia Biblica (A&C Black, London 1899, p.474) an early “church father”, Cyprian also suggested this argument, only slightly different in that he claimed that only Jews were baptised using the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This encyclopaedia, however, also notes the problem with this argument mentioned in (a) on this page.) There are, however, several problems with this view:

a. It breaks down in the face of Acts 10:45_8, the opening of the door to the Gentiles. These verses mention previously nonreligious Gentiles who were baptised in the name of the Lord. If the view above had been correct, the Bible would have said these nonreligious Gentiles were baptised “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” because that would have been the correct formula for previously nonreligious Gentiles.

b. It would mean that praying (John 14:13-14, 15:16, 16:23,26), healing (Acts 3:6) and casting out demons (Acts 16:18) in the name of Jesus Christ would also only be applicable to Jews or previously religious Gentiles who had not known the Lord Jesus. This is clearly not correct.

c. If it were true, then the other instructions in Mt. 28:19 to make disciples, teaching them to obey Christ’s commands meant that the Gospel was only to be preached to nonreligious Gentiles, not to Jews and religious Gentiles. Since part of Matthew 28:19 is applicable to everyone, both Jew and Gentile, religious and nonreligious, then all of it must be. The command to baptise is a command to baptise both Jew and Gentile, those that were previously religious and those who were not. Further evidence that Jews were also included in those who were to be discipled and baptised in the way described in Mt. 28:19 is found in the parallel scripture, Luke 24:47. This verse tells us that preaching (and therefore baptism also) was to begin in Jerusalem, a mostly Jewish city.

So we can only conclude that this is not the reason why the early church baptised people in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) or in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48) after being commanded to baptise into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

It is sometimes said that historical accounts in Scripture should be interpreted by explicit teachings given in other parts of the Bible. In certain cases this statement is true. However, some people then claim that advocates of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ give the historical accounts of baptism in Acts priority over the Lord’s teaching on baptism in Matthew 28. They therefore set aside historical accounts such as Acts, believing that these cannot be understood until fully explained, that they are not applicable to us today or they simply ignore what the apostles did and only believe what Jesus said.

One response to this view is that in reality it is just a matter of understanding, in this case of whose name we are to be baptised in, and obedience to the command given. This is true of other commands and promises given by Jesus, the interpretations of which were not clear at the time, but historical accounts show what they meant. For example, Jesus taught that he was the bread of life (John 6), he foretold his crucifixion (Mt. 12:40, Mk. 8:31, John 2:19), and promised the Holy Spirit (John 14). Some of these were teachings and were not understood at the time they were given, but were interpreted by historical events. In other words, God interprets his word by bringing it to pass.

The main problem with this view is that it will lead us to ignore certain parts of the Bible which we consider irrelevant or too difficult to understand and to forget that All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). So even historical accounts must be applicable for doctrine or they are not Scripture. The parts of the Old Testament which seem irrelevant today are applicable because they are figures or antitypes (Heb. 9:24), a representation of what was to come.

Furthermore, regarding certain historical passages of scripture, the Bible says, Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come (1 Cor. 10:11). If certain actions were performed by ungodly people and we can see the consequences of those actions we can learn not to do those things. On the other hand we can, when led by God and with his strength, do the same things godly people did and receive the same reward. Wouldn’t this be a better way of explaining the historical passages of Scripture?

We are to do the same things as the early church (1 Cor. 4:16-17, Phil. 4:9, 17, 1 Thess. 1:6). According to Ephesians 2:20, the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. It is unthinkable that the apostles disobeyed the command of our Lord. If they did, then they may have disobeyed any other foundational teaching of Jesus, and we could not trust most of the New Testament, for most of it is written by the apostles of Christ. What the apostles did is mainly recorded in the book of Acts. Therefore the records in Acts including those of baptisms do have application to us today. There is also every reason to be baptised in the same way as believers in the early church, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Is reference to the Lord Jesus Christ without mention of the Father and the Holy Spirit misleading?

Some people claim that to use the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” as a baptismal formula today is highly misleading, because it does not include any reference to the Father or the Spirit who, it is suggested, are distinct persons from Jesus.

If this were true then would it not again be misleading to follow the examples of Paul and Peter in using the phrase in the name of Jesus Christ in healing and casting out demons (Acts 3:6 and 16:18)? Also when Paul said be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1, 4:16, Phil. 3:17), doesn’t this include following the early church in the way they baptised people? The way they baptised people is recorded in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48 and was in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord.

Furthermore, the Bible says all the fullness of the Godhead bodily dwells in Christ (Col. 2:9). The Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father (John 14:10, 17:21). The Holy Spirit came upon Christ (Mt 3:16, Mk 1:10, Luke 3:22, 4:18, John 1:32) and was in him. Therefore, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit dwell in Christ. The preposition eis (into) and accusative case are used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5 where it is said that baptism was into the name of the Lord Jesus. This is exactly the same sentence construction as Matthew 28:19. So we can say that water baptism using the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, along with spiritual baptism into God’s character fulfils Christ’s command to baptise into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).

The word “distinct” means “not alike, different, or separate” and this usage of the word in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can only lead to tri_theism. For example, if the Father were distinct from Jesus, that would mean the Father and Jesus were not alike, and this idea contradicts the following Scriptures:

He that seeth me seeth him that sent me (John 12:45, 8:19, 14:7)

Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, 2:9, Heb. 1:3)

So, according to Scripture, the Father and Jesus are alike, the very opposite of “distinct”. It is unscriptural then to say that Father and Jesus are “distinct”.

“Person” is a totally inadequate word to describe the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. This is simply because in common English “person” can only mean either an individual human or divine being, or a living human body, or bodily appearance. Just look in a dictionary and see for yourself! God is not three individual beings, or there would be three Gods; God is only one being.

Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit dwell in Christ and are not “distinct” or three persons, it is not at all misleading to baptise using the words “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”.

Is re-baptism wrong?

Some people think it is wrong to be re-baptised, but Acts 19:5 proves that re-baptism was practised in Bible times. So why should re-baptism not be practised now, if a person’s baptism is no longer valid because of further revelation, as was that of the Ephesians in Acts 19? Indeed, some Christians today are re-baptised when they realise that their original baptism before conversion was not valid and that they did not understand what they were doing when they were originally baptised.

Liturgy and superstition

Some people claim that a formula of words is not to be recited as a liturgy (a prescribed form or ritual for public worship). However, it is the phrase “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” that has been incorrectly used as a liturgy by many Christian denominations and several cults. This phrase is only recorded in Matthew 28:19 and is not a formula of words as we have seen. Demons don’t mind people repeating the phrase “the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” but they hate the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again we can use the same argument as we have used before. If using the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” in baptism is a liturgy then the early church used a liturgy in Acts 3:6, 16:18 & 2 Thess. 3:6. The power is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, not in “the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. I just wonder whether anything would even happen if you tried to cast out a demon or tell a disabled person to rise up and walk using the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. So then why repeat this phrase parrot_fashion when baptising people? By saying this I do not mean that Matthew 28:19 is wrong, I am just saying it is not a baptismal formula; its true meaning is explained on pages four to six.

When any Christian prays, casts out demons, heals the sick or preaches the gospel, they speak the name of Jesus Christ quite naturally, not as a ritualistic liturgy or recitation. So why should it be any different in baptism? There are people who do miracles and cast out demons who will say to Jesus that they did them to so onomati, i.e. in your name (Mt. 7:22), which must have involved speaking his name. Yet Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23). Notice there is no Scriptural evidence that Jesus will rebuke them for “reciting” his name, but rather he will rebuke them because he never even knew them. If we use his name, we must make sure we know him (See also Acts 19:13).

Another example of this is Mark 9:39/Luke 9:49 where the disciples rebuked someone who was casting out devils, not for “reciting” or using the name of Jesus but because he did not follow the disciples. Not only did Jesus also not rebuke the man for using the name, but he instructed the disciples to let him carry on casting out devils even when he didn’t follow them, because he that is not against us is for us (Lk. 9:50).

It is true that words should not be used as “magical passwords” or superstitiously. Of course words do not have an automatic spiritual effect, though they can create an atmosphere which may in turn bring a blessing or a curse (See Derek Prince, Blessing or Curse: You Can Choose, Word Books, 1990). So some people argue that the name of the Lord Jesus is not to be always repeated in baptism or in prayer. They may quote Matthew 6:7, use not vain repetition, to support this view. But vain repetition means “idle and mechanical repetition of phrases” (Vine) or tedious prating (Strong’s no. 945, J S Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Riverside/World, Nelson or Baker Book House, USA). I would like to make several points about this:

● The context is prayer, so the verse does not necessarily apply to baptism, casting out demons or healing.

● The second half of the verse shows that the vain repetition is more of a problem in long prayers than as short phrases used in prayer.

● I do not think there are two or three witnesses in Scripture which show that vain repetitions can include speaking the name of Jesus Christ.

● I know of no Scripture where anyone in the Bible was ever rebuked for using, reciting or speaking the name of Jesus Christ.

John Newton was inspired to write the hymn, “How sweet the name of Jesus sounds in a believer’s ear.” He did not write, “How sweet the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost sounds…” Anyway, the Bible states in Phil. 2:10 that at the name of Jesus, not “at the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” every knee shall bow. A true believer will use the name of Jesus in prayer, but never superstitiously or as a magical password. It is not speaking the name of Jesus in itself but the authority behind the name that has an effect. In the same way, in baptism, the name of Jesus will naturally be used by anyone who does not have preconceived unscriptural ideas about baptismal formulae. It will not be used superstitiously or as a liturgy, but in obedience and because of the authority behind the name.

Bible Encyclopaedias and Church history

Some people think that it is generally agreed by all scholars that either no baptismal formula was used in the New Testament church, or that Matthew 28:19 was the original baptismal formula. That this is not true can be shown by examining some Bible Encyclopaedias. Most of the writers in these encyclopaedias agree that a baptismal formula (or the words spoken as someone is baptised) was in use in the New Testament church. Furthermore, almost all of them agree that “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” or a variation of it was the original baptismal formula. Evidence from church history is also given in these encyclopaedias to show that the organised church changed the words used as a formula to those given in Matthew 28:19. Some state the time when the formula was changed: the time of Justin Martyr, in the second century. Many of these statements are quoted in the leaflet Historical References to Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Some people quote from the Didache to try and prove that the earliest baptismal formula used was “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. But although that document does quote these words recorded in Matthew 28:19 it does not state that these words were to be spoken whenever a person was baptised. Anyway the Didache also allows the unscriptural practice of pouring as an alternative to immersion, three times instead of once as the Bible teaches. So all the Didache shows is how unbiblical some baptismal practices of post New Testament times became. It does not show that the correct formula is “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” at all.

Are those who baptise in the name of Jesus Christ guilty by association?

Some people claim that those who baptise “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” are associating themselves with the errors of the so-called “Oneness movement”. Such errors include baptismal regeneration, or the belief that baptism in water brings the new birth, that a person cannot be born again without being baptised in water in the name of Jesus, and that the Son is not God. If this were true, then using the Trinitarian formula is associating oneself with the errors of Mormonism and Roman Catholicism which also use the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. The Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 11:24-25 states the following about what must be said as a Mormon baptism is performed:

“And now behold, these are the words ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Secondly, Virtue’s Catholic Encyclopaedia (Virtue’s Catholic Encyclopaedia, Virtue & Co. Ltd, London, 1965, p.82) states that

“In its essentials Baptism is the pouring of water upon the head of a person, while these words are said: ‘I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’”

So both these cults require the exact words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of Holy Ghost” to be used as a baptismal formula.

Scriptural baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not a requirement for salvation like baptism using the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is for Mormons and Roman Catholics. It is simply the original Biblical method of baptism. This method of baptism in fact has been used by many godly men.

Conclusion

In this study we have seen the importance of the words spoken as a person is baptised. We have shown that Matthew 28:19 is mainly referring to spiritual baptism into the character of God and may be quoted before baptising a person during an explanation of this. This spiritual baptism involves crucifixion and burial of sin and the flesh and Christ living in us so we can be like him. However, we have also seen that these words recorded in Matthew 28:19 were not intended to be used as a baptismal formula (the words spoken as a person is baptised) and that these words were only used as a baptismal formula a long time after the New Testament was written.

We then briefly considered whether a baptismal formula is necessary at all. Then we saw that in Bible days the name of Jesus Christ was spoken as a person was baptised (not just “Jesus” as this would be confused with other people called Jesus.) Finally we considered several objections to using the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” as a baptismal formula.

In conclusion, this is why we can be sure that “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” was the original baptismal formula:

a. The use of the word eis and the accusative case used in the Greek of Matthew 28:19 prove that the words recorded there were not intended to be spoken as a baptismal formula.

b. The use of the words en and epi and the dative case in Acts 2:38 and 10:48 indicate that either of the phrases, in the name of the Lord or in the name of Jesus Christ were spoken as a baptismal formula.

c. The rule about two or three witnesses shows that a doctrine should not be based on Matthew 28:19 alone and that the records of baptisms in the Acts of the Apostles are true. Except in Mt. 28:19, baptism in Scripture is always connected with the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, Romans 6:3, Gal. 3:27).

d. A cheque must be signed with your personal name, not “father, son, husband” if that is what you are, otherwise it is not valid.

e. Nowhere in Scripture is it recorded that any of the first Christians ever wrote or spoke the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. However, several Scripture verses record the exact phrase in the name of Jesus Christ being spoken or written.

Those who follow the Lord Jesus Christ will not add to God’s word and will live by every word of God:

Add not thou to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (Proverbs 30:6).

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word of God (Luke 4:4)

If we know the truth about baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and spiritual baptism into the character of God, are we willing to obey our Lord and do it?