Your response raises several thoughtful points, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond in depth. The discussion over the proper understanding and application of Matthew 28:19 and the baptismal practice found in the book of Acts is not just a debate over semantics, but a theological reflection of how the early Church understood the oneness of God and the authority invested in the name of Jesus.
1. The Claim That Acts Merely Describes, Not Prescribes:
It’s true that Acts records actions, but narrative in Scripture often carries implicit apostolic instruction—especially when the same action is repeated multiple times under apostolic leadership without correction. The fact that Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 all explicitly state that believers were baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is not incidental. This is a pattern—a consistent apostolic practice that reflects their understanding of Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19. The New Testament Church, operating under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, interpreted “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” to be fulfilled by invoking the name of Jesus.
While it’s true that the Greek in Acts such as ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι or εἰς τὸ ὄνομα can refer to authority, in Scripture, the name is not just legal authorization—it’s revelatory identification. The name invoked over the believer during baptism represents the name by which sins are remitted (Acts 2:38), the name by which all must be saved (Acts 4:12), and the name that is above every name (Phil. 2:9–11). So, even if the text does not transcribe the exact spoken formula, the emphasis on “the name” being Jesus is too consistent—and too central—to be brushed aside as a narrative footnote. The early Church did not treat it that way, and neither should we.
2. Matthew 28:19 and the Singular “Name”:
Matthew 28:19 uses the singular Greek word ὄνομα (name), not ὀνόματα (names). Jesus does not say to baptize in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—He says to baptize into the name, singular. This grammatically demands a unifying name that encapsulates all three roles mentioned. The apostles, who received this command directly from Jesus and were later filled with the Holy Spirit, did not record any instance where someone was baptized using a verbal formula of “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Instead, every baptism in Acts is done in the name of Jesus. Why? Because they understood Jesus to be the revealed name of the Father (John 5:43), the Son (Matthew 1:21), and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). The singular name is not a list of titles, but a divine identity—Jesus.
3. The Role of the Didache and Early Church Writings:
While the Didache and writers like Tertullian are valuable for historical study, they are not divinely inspired Scripture. The Didache was not authored by the apostles themselves and is dated decades after the apostolic era—around the end of the first century or early second century. Tertullian, writing in the late second to early third century, was already showing signs of influence from emerging Trinitarian thought that was foreign to first-century monotheistic Judaism. The Church Fathers, while respected, are not the foundation of truth; the Word of God is. Apostolic precedent and Scripture must remain our highest authority.
It is important to acknowledge that the baptismal formula evolved in church liturgy over time. The original practice as seen in the book of Acts was baptism in Jesus’ name. Later creedal developments and philosophical debates influenced the doctrinal framework that elevated the “Trinitarian” formula to a sacramental norm. However, historical development should not replace apostolic instruction.
4. Complementary Testimony or Interpretive Division?
You stated that there is no contradiction but complementary testimony: Acts gives us the authority, Matthew gives us the form. That conclusion would be reasonable—if the apostles ever once used the wording of Matthew 28:19 in practice. But they did not. They consistently used the name of Jesus, and they did so with confidence and Holy Ghost power. When Peter declared on Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” he was not innovating—he was interpreting the very words Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19, under the inspiration of the Spirit.
The Acts accounts do not contradict Matthew—they fulfill it. The apostles obeyed Jesus by baptizing in His name, not as a replacement, but as a revelation of who the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost truly are in one manifested name—Jesus. This practice was not an optional alternative; it was the practice of the apostolic Church. To return to Jesus’ own words in John 17:6, He said, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me.” That name is not a mystery of titles—it is the revealed name of redemption, the name that holds all the fullness of the Godhead: the name of Jesus.