Introduction It'sNot Rightly Dividing the Word The Apostles Never Used Them Baptized "into the name" (Matthew 28:19) Sentence Structure Examined
Introduction
When it comes to the name or words spoken during baptism, there is as much disagreement in modern churches over this as there is about whether people should be sprinkled, poured, or immersed. This is a bible study about baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), showing that Jesus was not referring to water baptism when he spoke these words. Look at the scripture: Textus Receptus - Matthew 28:18-20 King James Version , 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19
Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
20
(Matthew 28:18-20 RPT) "And after he came, Jesus spoke to them, saying, All authority was given to me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: 20 Teaching them to keep all things whatever I commanded you. And behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age. Amen." There are some churches today who use this scripture to justify baptizing in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," even though the early church never did it. Nevertheless, these being the words of Jesus, they have been given preference to the other scriptures which seem to contradict it. This scripture, however, refers to the true spiritual baptism, of which water baptism is just a small part, and for the following reasons it should not be used to justify speaking "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" during water baptism.
did Peter command the baptism of Cornelius and his household "in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48), and if this was wrong, why did the other six Jewish brethren from Joppa (Acts 10:23; 10:45; 11:12) not object? Also when the angel instructed Cornelius to send for Peter, he said to him, "he shall tell you what you ought to do." (Acts 10:6). Do we now assume that the angel instructed Cornelius wrongly, because Peter gave the instruction for baptism "in the name of the Lord."? Why did Paul re-baptize the Ephesians "in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5)? Do we have good scriptural answers to these questions? God's words are "all plain to him who understands," (Proverbs 8:9), so when it is correctly understood, all apparent contradictions can be satisfactorily explained. A failure to be able to do this is a failure to have rightly divided the word of God. (4) Consider the context The whole context of this scripture is not to do with water baptism, but to do with the authority that Jesus had (Matthew 28:18), which he had previously passed on to his disciples (Matthew 10:1; Luke 9:1; 10:19). He was now instructing them how to bring others to the place to receive. By not considering the context, the true meaning of this scripture has been missed by those who use it to indicate the method of water baptism. (5) Check the original language No scripture can be properly understood from faulty translations, and as no known perfect translations are available (2011) a good working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is essential. This study will prove this point.
The apostles had a very good knowledge of New Testament Greek; many could argue that not only did they speak it fluently, because it was the common language of most Mediterranean countries in those days, but they also wrote the New Testament in it. However, when they baptized new converts, they did not do it "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", as Jesus appears to have instructed here. They baptized them "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38), and "in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). Were the apostles deliberately disobedient to the words of Jesus? Or was it rather that they had a better understanding of the language than the modern churches today, and knew that Jesus was not referring to the words spoken over a water baptism when he said this? (Luke 24:45) "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."
In this context, therefore, there are some scholars who would translate this word as an imperative, that is a command, even though it is a participle in the Greek, because the participle takes on the nature of the main verb, which is an imperative. Many other similar examples could be quoted: (Matthew 2:8) " Go and search diligently for the young child;" (Matthew 2:20) " Arise, and take the young child ..." (Matthew 22:9) " Go therefore into the highways," (Luke 14:10) " go and sit down in the lowest room;" (Acts 9:6) " Arise, and go into the city," (2 Timothy 4:11) " Take Mark, and bring him with you:" The point to note is that, in the KJV the main verb of the sentence, is "teach" and not "Go you". Following the main verb we have two other verbs, "baptizing" and "Teaching", both of which are present participles in the Greek. The present participle usually refers to an action simultaneous with the main verb (WP p96; DFH p57; JWW p152), indicating that the teaching, the baptizing, and the discipling are all going on at the same time. It also indicates that the "baptizing" and the "teaching" are both going on for the same length of time as the "make disciples of". This should make it clear that the word "baptizing" (Matthew 28:19) is not referring only to the relatively instantaneous ordinance of water baptism, but rather to the much longer process of being spiritually baptized into obedience in thought (2 Corinthians 10:5), word, and deed (Romans 15:18). This is done as the word of God is written in our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:3), and we learn to "observe all things" (Matthew 28:20) that Jesus has commanded us. The word "disciple" also means "learner", so this could be translated "make learners of ... baptizing them ... Teaching them ...", which gives support to this view because it seems logical that the learning would have to go on at the same time as the teaching, doesn't it? The participles "baptizing" and "teaching" (Matthew 28:19-20) could then be considered in three ways. (1) As participles of means. In this case the participle indicates the means by which the action of the main verb is carried out. Examples: (Matthew 6:27) "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?" (Matthew 28:19-20) "make disciples of ... by baptizing ... by teaching ..." Grammatically, this interpretation is certainly a possibility. (2) As participles of attendant circumstance. In this case the participle indicates some action going on at the same time as the main verb, and is dependent on it, but is a different action to that of the main verb. It is therefore possible for the action of the main verb to be done without the action of the participles. Examples: (Matthew 9:35) "Jesus went about ... teaching ... preaching ... and healing ..." (Matthew 21:22) "Ask in prayer, believing," We can rule this out as a possible interpretation because it would mean that the "make disciples of" could be done without baptizing or teaching, and this is not possible. (3) As participles of identical action. In this case the participle describes the action of the main verb from a different point of view, but is identical to it. Examples: (Matthew 5:2) "he ... taught them, saying,"
(Matthew 28:18) "Jesus ... spoke to them, saying," This would mean that the "make disciples of" and the "baptizing" (both in a physical and a spiritual sense) are the same process, and that the "make disciples of" and the "teaching" are the same process. If we understand that Jesus' command was to make perfect disciples, then the "make disciples of" and the "baptizing" are certainly the same process, both being completed only when perfection is obtained. However, "make disciples of" involves much more than "teaching", it involves the student learning, and conforming his life to obedience, so the most we could say in this context is that "teaching" is only part of the process, but the make disciples of cannot be completed without it (Ephesians 4:11-13). The favoured interpretation here then is that the participles, "baptizing" and "teaching", are participles of "identical action", with a secondary meaning of "means".