Matthew 28:19

And teach (RV 'make disciples of') all nations, baptising them (or 'by baptising them')] In the clearest possible language Christ expresses His intention of founding a universal religion. It has sometimes been argued that these words cannot be authentic, because of the subsequent unwillingness of the Church of Jerusalem, and even of Peter, to receive Gentile converts. But the question in the Acts was not whether Gentile converts should be received, but whether they should first be circumcised.

The argument against infant baptism drawn from this passage (that infants cannot be 'taught,' and therefore should not be baptised, disappears in the RV, which says that the apostles are 'to make disciples of all nations by baptising them.' To Jewish hearers such words would naturally suggest infant baptism, because the idea of infant disciples or proselytes was familiar to Judaism: see on Matthew 19:13.

In the name (RV 'into the name') of the Father, etc.] One of the leading dogmatic texts in the NT., being the nucleus around which.the Apostles' Creed subsequently grew. It teaches, (1) the divinity of Christ, for no mere man could thus insert his name between those of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. (2) The unity of the Godhead, for one 'name,' or divine nature, belongs to the three. (3) The Trinity of persons, for since the former two are persons, so also is the third. (4) The subordination of the coequal persons to one another, viz. the Son to the Father, and the Spirit to both. 'Let therefore Arius and Sabellius be put to shame, Arius because Christ said not “Into the names (pi.),” but “Into the name (sing.),” and the name, or deity, of the Three is one. Wherefore the Three are but one God. Sabellius, because the Lord made mention also of the three persons, not of one person having three names, sometimes being called the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Spirit, as Sabellius ignorantly affirmed' (Theophylact).

The RV changes 'in the name' to 'into the name.' If the difference is to be pressed (which is not certain), it implies that baptism is a change of religious condition. The baptised person passes from a state of alienation from God into a state of union and reconciliation with Him. This passage does not record the first institution of Baptism, which had been in use from the beginning of the ministry, but its solemn promulgation as a rite of universal, perpetual, and necessary observance: see John 3:22; John 4:1.

Although the Trinitarian formula in this passage is found in all MSS and versions, some recent critics regard it as an interpolation, or at least as an unauthentic utterance of Jesus. They argue that all the baptisms described in the NT. are into the name of Jesus, not into the name of the Trinity (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5), and that so definite, and, as it were, stereotyped, a formulation of Trinitarian doctrine, must be later than the apostolic age. These arguments are not without weight, nevertheless there are important considerations on the other side. For the formula, whether spoken by Jesus or not, dates certainly from the apostolic age. It was clearly known to Clement of Rome (90 a.d.), who has three Trinitarian statements, mentioning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit thrice in that order; it forms the basis of the earliest form of the Apostles' Creed (cirMatthew 100 a.d.); it is expressly quoted in the 'Didache' (Matthew 100 a.d.); and is definitely alluded to by Justin Martyr (150 a.d.). It may be doubted whether any other single text of the NT. has such early and satisfactory attestation. Nor is it easy to say, with such a definite Trinitarian formula before us as 2 Corinthians 13:14, that the baptismal formula must necessarily be later. Trinitarian doctrine and approximations to it, are diffused through the whole NT. literature, and the prevalence of such a type of teaching is most naturally accounted for by supposing that it has behind it some such pregnant utterance of our Lord as the present, the meaning of which was gradually unfolded subsequently under the guidance of the Spirit. The argument from the baptisms 'into the name of Jesus' or of 'the Lord Jesus' in Acts is more plausible than strong. In no case is the actual formula given, and we cannot be sure that the author means more than that the baptisms in question were Christian baptisms. The 'Didache' (Matthew 100 a.d.), like Acts, speaks of Christian baptism as being into the name of the Lord Jesus, but when it comes to describe the rite in detail, prescribes the Trinitarian formula, and that only.