“Father, Son and Holy Spirit”: The Baptismal Formula(s) of Matt 28:19

Introduction

In Matt 28:19 we find the commission given by Jesus to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Whilst the textual witness to Matt 28:19 in the NT manuscripts is impeccable, there are a few textual witnesses dissenting. Eusebius attests to a short form,[1] as does a 14^th century Hebrew version of Matthew.[2]  The presence of the formula in earlier witnesses (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.17.1; cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 61) tells against these dissenting witnesses. The scholarly consensus is that Eusebius omitted the threefold formula as it was not topical.[3] Neither the triadic structure of the formula nor its uniqueness in the NT are strong indicators of interpolation[4] given the parallel witness of the Didache and subsequent baptismal practice. This is the only occasion in Matthew¸ and one of the few occasions in the NT, where any instructions for baptismal practice are given, so the uniqueness of the baptismal formula in Matt 28:19 is not necessarily unexpected. However, throughout the NT there seem to be apparent references or allusions to another baptismal formula, namely, ‘into the name of Christ’. In this short article, I will examine the function of both phrases in the NT.

The Baptismal Formulas

In Matt 28:19 Jesus is commissioning his closest followers to go and make further disciples. The participle ‘baptizing’ is dependent on the main verb ‘make disciples of’, indicating that this baptism was seen as an initiation into discipleship.[5] We shall return to the meaning of the phrase ‘into the name of’ but it is important to establish the function of this phrase. Conceivably, this could be primarily descriptive, either defining the type of baptism or giving its theological significance. Alternatively, the phrase could be a formula for baptismal liturgy. J. N. D. Kelly writes that this “conjecture is abundantly borne out by the Church’s practice in regard to the formula in succeeding generations”.[6] Throughout subsequent generations, a threefold liturgy was used during the baptismal ceremony, either as a simple formula (Didache; Justin) or as a threefold interrogation into the beliefs of the candidate (Hippolytus; Tertullian).  

Elsewhere in the NT, there is scant detail regarding the baptismal ceremony. In Rom 6:3-4 Paul explains baptism as a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ.[7] A variant of Acts 8:37 includes the declaration “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”; P. F. Bradshaw writes, “we do not know whether this was the precise wording of an actual liturgical formula, nor, if it was, where it might have been in use, but it certainly implies that something like it was part of the living tradition of at least one Christian community through which a Greek manuscript of the Acts of the Apostles was transmitted”.[8] M. E. Johnson assumes that NT baptism was preceded by a period of instruction and a profession of faith, but acknowledges that neither of these is explicitly mentioned.[9]

Throughout the NT there seem to be apparent references or allusions to another baptismal formula, namely, ‘into the name of Christ’. However, it is questionable to what extent this phrase was used as a part of baptismal liturgy. For example, whilst ‘in the name of Paul’ (1 Cor 1:13) is an allusion to the phrase ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 8:16; 19:5), the fact that being baptised by Paul might be construed as being baptised into the name of Paul (cf. 1 Cor 1:14-15) might imply that no formula was used or, at least, that the phrase ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ was used descriptively—just as one might be baptised ‘in Christ’ (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27), one might also be baptised ‘unto Moses’ (1 Cor 10:2) and ‘unto John’s baptism’ (Acts 19:3).[10]

In 1 Cor 6:11, the conjunction of ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ with ‘by the Spirit of our God’ indicates that the former was used to descriptively of the method of salvation. Since ‘the name of Jesus Christ’ is used to describe the content of pre-baptismal instruction (Acts 8:12), it is possible that baptism ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (cf. 8:16) may describe the baptism of one who has received such instruction. The variety of forms (cf. ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ Acts 2:38; ‘in the name of the Lord’ 10:48; ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ 19:5) might possibly reflect a variety of baptismal traditions[11] but might also indicate that this phrase was not formulaic but only descriptive. We cannot rule out a liturgical use of such a formula but there is no indisputable liturgical use recorded in the NT. Acts 22:16 mentions the use of an invocation associated with baptism, but it is not obvious this formed part of an established baptismal ceremony rather than Paul’s own conversion.

The phrase εις (τό) όνομα (‘in the name’) is uncommon in Greek literature. W. Heitmüller noted its use in Greek banking, where it had the meaning ‘paid into the account of’, and so interpreted baptism as making the candidate the property of Jesus.[12] This explanation seems improbable as it entails the early Christian community repurposing banking terminology for theological purposes. Billerbeck and Bietenhard (TDNT) sought for an alternative explanation in the Hebrew l^eshem (lit. “into [somebody’s] name”), though their exposition of this phrase yielded similar results to Heitmüller.[13] This has led to the common interpretation of εις (τό) όνομα[gk] as denoting identity and ownership.[14]

Hartman, criticising Billerbeck and Bietenhard for distinguishing too sharply between the final and causal meanings of the phrase, believes his survey of the uses of l^eshem in rabbinic literature proves the “inadequacy of the dedicatory interpretation … but also gives us some idea of how widely the expression could be used”.[15] He focuses on ritual uses of the phrases l^eshem-l^eshum (which he believes to have a technical ritual usage), saying it is used to “introduce the type, reason or purpose of the rite as well as its intention”. [16] Therefore the phrase [gk]εις (τό) όνομα with regard to baptism characterised the ritual and distinguished it from other rites (i.e. Jesus-baptism, as opposed to John-baptism).[17]

Despite noting the wide usage of the l^eshem, later Hartman decided that the ritualistic use of the phrase had a more definite meaning: “The rites are performed ‘into the name’ of the god, to whose cult the rite belongs or who is otherwise associated with the rite in question. This god is the fundamental referent of the rite … who thus makes it meaningful”.[18] Therefore he interprets the threefold baptismal formula as accompanying a rite whose referent is a triune God.[19] However, this conclusion seems questionable given the counter-examples already noted by Hartman (cf. m.Zeb 4.6).[20] U. Luz rejects Hartman’s conclusion, arguing that the rabbinic expression l^eshem had wide range of uses, “contains no concrete reference to a name” and means “for the purpose of”. [21] The translation of εις (τό) όνομα as ‘for the sake of’ or ‘with reference to’ seems supported by the use of the phrase elsewhere in the NT (Matt 10:42; 18:20; cf. Heb 6:10).[22]

If we accept the translation ‘baptizing them for the sake of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’, we still have not established the meaning of the formula. B. M. Newman and P. C. Stine’s suggestion, “by the authority of”, [23] seems speculative. In Matt 28:19 it is Christ who is commissioning baptism; whilst the authorisation of God and the Spirit might be implied, this is not stated. W. C. Allen’s suggestion that the formula implies that baptism confers fellowship with Father, Son and Spirit[24] seems equally conjectural. Luz suggests that the formula implies that baptism is “constitutive of the new identity”.[25] Whilst this may seem intuitive given baptism was the Christian rite of initiation, comparison with the uses of εις (τό) όνομα do not bear out this idea. One was not baptized ‘in the name of John’ (cf. Acts 19:3) or ‘in the name of Moses’ (cf. 1 Cor 10:2). The hypothetical baptism ‘in the name of Paul’ would not have identified one as a follower of Paul but constituted usurpation of the role properly ascribed to Christ (1 Cor 1:13). The only viable comparator we have is baptism ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 8:16; 19:5).[26]

Following the narrative of Acts 19, Paul expected the disciples at Ephesus to be baptised ‘into’ (εις) something. They were previously baptised ‘into John’s baptism’ and latterly baptised ‘into the name of the Lord Jesus’. Paul distinguishes the former as the baptism of repentance from the latter as characterised by belief in Jesus (Acts 19:4). If ‘the name of Jesus Christ’ in Acts 8:12 may be read as the content of pre-baptismal teaching then it is significant that the initiates believed this teaching. That a profession of belief preceded baptism should not be surprising (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 8:13, 8:37, 18:8) and that the content of that belief was Jesus is also unsurprising.

Conclusion

If the phrase ‘into the name of’ is summary description or characterisation of the faith commitments of the initiate then all forms of the phrase in reference to baptism are explicable. The short form, ‘into the name of the Lord Jesus’, is a suitable characterisation of Christian faith, which entails faith in Jesus Christ. The longer form, ‘into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’, is a fuller expression of the Christian faith, which for the first century Christian involved an intimate relationship with God as a loving father, allegiance to Jesus as both teacher and saviour, and the new experience of the Holy Spirit received following baptism. It seems likely that only the latter phrase was the liturgical formula, whilst the former was used descriptively.

---

[1] G. Howard, “A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew” The Harvard Theological Review 81:1 (1988): 117-120 (117).

[2] Howard, “Short Ending”, 118-120; G. Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Mercer University Press, 2005), 194.

[3] E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 134; K. M. Hartvigsen, “Matthew 28:9-20 and Mark 16:9-20: Different Ways of Relating Baptism to the Joint Mission of God, John the Baptist, Jesus and their Adherents” in Ablution, Initiation and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism and Early Christianity (eds. D. Hellholm, T. Vegge, Ø. Norderval & C. Hellholm; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 655-716 (657). H. B. Green in “Matthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex orandi” in The Making of Orthodoxy (ed. R. Williams; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 124-141, has argued that Eusebius witnesses to a separate manuscript tradition that was, also, the most primitive. However his argument from internal evidence against the authenticity of the triadic formula is not strong.

[4] Hartvigsen, “Matt 28:9-20 and Mark 16:9-20”, 657.

[5] B. M. Newman & P. C. Stine, A Translator’s Handbook of the Gospel of Matthew (London; United Bible Societies, 1989), 913.

[6] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London: Longman, 1972), 42.

[7] Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 156.

[8] P. F. Bradshaw, “The Profession of Faith in Early Christian Baptism” Ecclesia Orans 23 (2006): 337-355 (338).

[9] M. E. Johnson, Rites of Christian Initiation, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 23.

[10] L. Hartman, “Usages – Some Notes on the Baptismal Name-Formulae” in Ablution, Initiation and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism and Early Christianity (eds. D. Hellholm, T. Vegge, Ø. Norderval & C. Hellholm; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 397-413 (397).

[11] L. Hartman, ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’: Baptism in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 37.

[12] Cf. Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus, 38-40. See W. Heitmüller, Im Namen Jesu. Eine Sprach- und religiongeschichtliche Unterschung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe (FRLANT 1; Gōttingen: V&R, 1903).

[13] L. Hartman, “‘Into the Name of Jesus’: A suggestion concerning the earliest meaning of the phrase” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 432-444 (432-3); cf. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 135-6.

[14] B. D. Sprinks, Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 6.

[15] Hartman, “Into the Name of Jesus”, 434, 438.

[16] Hartman, “Into the Name of Jesus”, 439.

[17] Hartman, “Into the Name of Jesus”, 439-440; cf. Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus, 44

[18] Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus, 42.

[19] Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus, 150.

[20] Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus, 41, 44.

[21] U. Luz, Matthew 21-28, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 2005), 632 n135.

[22] In the Johannine writings, the phrase εις (τό) όνομα is connected with belief (John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; 1 John 5:13). If interpreted as above this would suggest the translation ‘believe because of the Son of God’, rather than ‘believe in the Son of God’.

[23] Newman & Stine, Matthew, 914.

[24] W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 3^rd ed. 1912; repr. 1957) 306; cf. Johnson, Rites of Christian Initiation, 28.

[25] Luz, Matthew 21-28, 632.

[26] Hartman rejects the idea that we can compare the usage of εις (τό) όνομα in Matthew and in Acts, saying “it is hardly permissible to assume that Paul or Luke understood it in the same way as the Palestinians did” (Hartman, “Into the Name of Jesus”, 435). I do not know any fact that would substantiate such an assertion. Indeed it seems entirely permissible to suppose that Paul understood the Hebrew idiom l^eshem and that he received some tradition regarding baptism from the apostles at Jerusalem.