1. To some,
perplexity, and even distress,
is caused by the apparent neglect
of the disciples to carry out the
Lord's command in Matthew
with regard to the formula of baptism.
They read the express words of the
risen Lord in the Gospel:
then, turning to Acts and onwards,
they find no single instance of,
or reference to,
baptism in which the Triune name of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit is employed.
2. On the contrary,
from the very first,
only ten days after the injunction had been given,
Peter is found
commanding all his hearers including those
of the dispersion (the diaspora)
to be baptized in
(the texts, except T,
read en, not epi,
nor eis as in
the name of Jesus Christ.
are in accord,
the formula being
in or into
the name of the Lord,
or the Lord Jesus.
In the last case,
whether this refers to those who heard John or Paul,
or whether the baptism was that of John or Paul,
the formula is the same.
many of us as were baptized into
(eis) Christ Jesus".
here baptism "in (eis)
the name of Paul" is clearly
contrasted with baptism in
the name of the Lord Jesus,
or Christ Jesus,
which must have been used as to Crispus,
Gaius, and Stephanas.
3. In all the other places where the
act of baptism is mentioned,
directly or indirectly,
the formula by implication is the same.
Yet on the other hand there stands
the definite command in
as to the discipling of THE NATIONS into
(eis) the Triune name of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.
4. The "difficulty" is
created by non-observance of the injunction in
as to "rightly dividing the word of truth".
It comes by mixing up and thus confusing the
concerning the church of God during the
"times of the Gentiles"
with the ordinances and observances of the
"times" of Messiah
with which the command in
has clearly to do,
as the discipling of the nations,
AS NATIONS, is expressly declared.
It is the commission of the Jewish ministry
at the end of this age.
There is nothing corresponding to this form of
baptism in any of the foregoing passages (2),
all of which are connected with individuals or families.
Inasmuch as the mystery is the great secret which was
"kept secret since the world began"
it follows logically that it must
not be read into the Gospels.
5. The "discipling"
work of Matthew
is national work:
its object—to bring all
nations into blessing with Israel.
It has nothing to do with the present
dispensation and the
of this dispensation.
takes up the proclamation of the kingdom,
left uncompleted in
after the church has been called on high.
Therefore, the baptism
"in" or "into"
the name of the Lord Jesus in Acts,
etc., was the continuation of
John's baptism for a while,
that is to say,
during the transitional period of Acts
until the mystery was openly
revealed and fully proclaimed (see
Longer Note, page 1694).
Then, the baptism of
supervened and still maintains.
6. To hold,
as some do,
that the disciples had "forgotten",
or were "ignorant of",
or else "ignored"
the express command of the Lord,
is to charge those spirit-endowed men
with either incompetence or insubordination!
Peter and John and the rest must
have known well the meaning and future reference of
and they knew of John's baptism also:
but until "led on"
into more of "all the truth",
by the Holy Spirit,
and until the revelation of the secret
concerning the church which is His body was declared,
they continued to baptize,
as John had done,
into the name of the Lord Jesus.
7. This explanation
does no violence to the Word of God.
It does not impugn the intelligence or
bona fides of the disciples.
It leaves each of the several
Scriptures unscathed and in its proper place,
and each as being absolute truth.
What it really "touches"
is tradition only and the teaching based thereon.