Is the tri-fold command for baptism (Matt. 28:19) in contradiction to verses that say that the early Christians baptized in the name of the Lord or Jesus only (like Acts 2:38 or this one)? References in Acts to baptizing 'in the name of Jesus Christ' do not indicate a compressed formula that replaces the Trinitarian command. Rather, this phrase distinguishes Christian baptism from the baptism of John or other Jewish washings. To be baptized 'in the name of Jesus' means to be baptized into His body, the Church, by His authority, which inherently encompasses the Trinitarian reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

According to numerous skeptics, the Bible is inconsistent regarding whether or not water baptism is necessary (e.g., Drange, 1996; Morgan, 2003; cf. Wells, 2001). In Dennis McKinsey’s book, Biblical Errancy (2000), he lists several verses that teach the need for one to be baptized in order to be saved (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; etc.), but then he lists four verses (John 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:14,16,17) which allegedly teach that baptism “is not a necessity” (p. 61). According to these men, Jesus and Paul were confused regarding the purpose of baptism.

There is no doubt that Jesus and His apostles taught the essentiality of being immersed in water for salvation. After Jesus commissioned His apostles to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” He stated that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16; cf. Matthew 28:19). The Jews who had murdered Christ, and to whom Peter spoke on the Day of Pentecost when he ushered in the Christian age, were told: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Before becoming a Christian, Saul of Tarsus was commanded to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The biblical solution to the problem of soul-damning sin is that the person who has heard the Gospel, who has believed its message, who has repented of past sins, and who has confessed Christ as Lord must then—in order to receive remission (forgiveness) of sins—be baptized. [The English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse, dip, plunge beneath, or submerge (Thayer, 1958, p. 94).] According to Peter, “baptism,” corresponding to Noah’s salvation through water, “now saves us…(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Although baptism is no less, nor more, important than any other of God’s commands regarding what to do to be saved, the New Testament clearly teaches that water immersion is the point at which a person is saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If it is the case then that baptism is essential for salvation, then why did the apostle John write: “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee” (John 4:1-3, emp. added)? And why did the apostle Paul write to the church at Corinth: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name…. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:14-17, emp. added)? Do these statements indicate that baptism is not necessary for a person to be saved as skeptics allege? No, they do not.

First, John did not indicate that Jesus thought baptism was unnecessary; he merely stated the fact that Jesus did not personally do the baptizing; rather, His disciples did (John 4:2). The phrase in 4:1 regarding Jesus “baptizing” more disciples than John is simply a figure of speech where a person is represented as doing something when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph indicated on one occasion that his brothers sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). This is a well-known principle in law—a person who acts through another to break the law (e.g., paying someone to commit murder) is deemed by authorities to be guilty of breaking the law himself. Similarly, Jesus did not personally baptize anyone. But, His teaching and influence caused it to be done. Jesus, the subject, is mentioned, but it is the circumstance of His influence that is intended. His teaching was responsible for people being baptized. Thus, this passage actually implies that Jesus commanded that His listeners be baptized. It in no way contradicts teachings found elsewhere in the Bible.

Second, Paul’s statements in his letter to the church at Corinth must be taken in their proper context in order to understand their true meaning. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul was dealing with the division that was plaguing the Corinthian Christians. He had heard of the controversy in Corinth, and begged them to stand united, and resolve their differences.

> Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
>
> I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).

Later, Paul added:

> For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:3-7).

When a person reads 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 in view of the problem of division in Corinth that Paul was addressing in chapter one and throughout this letter, he or she has a better understanding of Paul’s statements regarding baptism. He was not indicating that baptism was unnecessary, but that people should not glory in the one who baptizes them. Some of the Corinthians were putting more emphasis on who baptized them, than on the one body of Christ to which a person is added when he or she is baptized (cf. Acts 2:41,47; Ephesians 4:4). Paul was thankful that he did not personally baptize any more Corinthians than he did, lest they boast in his name, rather than in the name of Christ (1:15). Likely, this is the same reason why “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.” As Albert Barnes surmised: “[I]f he [Jesus—EL] had baptized, it might have made unhappy divisions among his followers: those might have considered themselves most worthy or honoured who had been baptized by him” (1956, p. 213, emp. in orig.). Paul understood that the fewer people he personally baptized, the less likely they were to rejoice in his name. [In 1 Corinthians 1:13, Paul implied that the only way to be saved is to be baptized into the name of Christ, saying, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”] Paul’s desire was for converts to tie themselves to the Savior, and not to himself. He knew that “there is salvation in no one else” but Jesus; “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul concerned himself with preaching, and, like Jesus, left others to do the baptizing.

When Paul stated: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” he meant that preaching was his main work, and that others could immerse the converts. He did not mean by this statement that baptism is unimportant, but that the baptizer is inconsequential. Consider this: If Paul did not baptize, but preached, and, if others baptized those who heard Paul’s teachings, what can we infer about the content of Paul’s teachings? The truth is, at some point, he must have instructed the unsaved to be baptized (which is exactly what occurred in Corinth—read Acts 18:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:11). Similar to how we logically infer from the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism (Acts 8:36-39), that when Philip “preached Jesus to him” (8:35), he informed the eunuch of the essentiality of baptism, we can truthfully affirm that Paul taught that baptism is essential for salvation. The allegation that Paul and Jesus ever considered baptism non-essential, simply is unfounded.

Problem: Paul declares that Christ did not send him to baptize. Yet Christ commissioned His disciples to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Does Paul contradict Christ?

Solution: Paul was not opposed to baptism, but neither did he believe it was a condition of salvation

Expanded from [Acts 2:38](Acts_2.38.php:

Acts 2:38—Did Peter declare that baptism was necessary for salvation?

Problem: Peter seems to be saying that those who responded had to repent and be baptized before they could receive the Holy Spirit. But this is contrary to the teaching of Paul that baptism is not part of the Gospel (1 Cor. 1:17) and that we are saved by faith alone (Rom. 4:4; Eph. 2:8–9).

Solution: This is resolved when we consider the possible meaning of being baptized “for” the remission of sins in the light of its usage, the whole context, and the rest of Scripture. Consider the following:

First, the word “for” (eis) can mean “with a view to” or even “because of.” In this case, water baptism would be because they had been saved, not in order to be saved.

Second, people are saved by receiving God’s word, and Peter’s audience “gladly received his word” before they were baptized (Acts 2:41).

Third, verse 44 speaks of “all who believed” as constituting the early church, not all who were baptized.

Fourth, later, those who believed Peter’s message clearly received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Peter said, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47)

Fifth, Paul separates baptism from the Gospel, saying, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). But it is the Gospel which saves us (Rom. 1:16). Therefore, baptism is not part of what saves us.

Sixth, Jesus referred to baptism as a work of righteousness (Matt. 3:15). But the Bible declares clearly it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (Titus 3:5).

Seventh, not once in the entire Gospel of John, written explicitly so that people could believe and be saved (John 20:31), does it give baptism as part of the condition of salvation. It simply says over and over that people should “believe” and be saved (cf. John 3:16, 18, 36).

In view of all these factors it seems best to understand Peter’s statement like this: “Repent and be baptized with a view to the forgiveness of sins.” That this view looked backward (to their sins being forgiven after they were saved) is made clear by the context and the rest of Scripture. Believing (or repenting) and being baptized are placed together, since baptism should follow belief. But nowhere does it say, “He who is not baptized will be condemned” (cf. Mark 16:16). Yet Jesus said emphatically that “he who does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18). So neither Peter nor the rest of Scripture makes baptism a condition of salvation.

). Paul himself was baptized by water (Acts 9:18; 22:16), and he taught water baptism in his epistles (cf. Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12). Indeed, in this very passage (1 Cor. 1), Paul admits that he baptized several people (vv. 14, 16) as he did the Philippian jailor after he was saved (Acts 16:31–33). While Paul believed water baptism was a symbol of salvation, he did not believe it was part of the Gospel or essential to salvation.

Acts 16:6—Why did the Holy Spirit forbid Paul to preach in Asia when Jesus said to go into all the world?

Problem: Jesus commanded His followers to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19) and to be witnesses to “the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). But in Acts 16 Paul and Timothy “were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia” (v. 6).

Solution: Paul was only forbidden immediately. God had a more strategic route for the Gospel through Europe first (Acts 16:9). Eventually, however, the Gospel got to Asia and to every place through Paul’s converts in Europe (cf. 1 Thes. 1:7) and by Paul himself (Acts 19:10, 22, 26; 20:4, 16, 18; 1 Cor. 16:19). So, the prohibition was only temporary, not permanent.

Problem: Jesus told His disciples to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19), because He had “other sheep ... which are not of this fold” (John 10:16). Even the OT prophets declared that Jesus would be “a light to the Gentiles” (Isa. 49:6). However, Jesus Himself instructed His disciples, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans” (Matt. 10:5). Later, He affirmed, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24).

Solution: These apparently contradictory commands refer to two different periods. It is true that Jesus’ original mission was to the Jews. But, the Scriptures testify that “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). The official Jewish position was to reject Him as their Messiah and to crucify Him (Matt. 27; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 18).

Therefore, it was after His crucifixion and resurrection that the mission of the disciples was to go to the nations. This was in fulfillment of prophecies about the Gentiles. Thus, the Apostle Paul could tell the Roman Christians that the Gospel was “for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). Because of their rejection of Jesus, the nation of Israel was cut off (Rom. 11:19), but, when the subsequent “fullness of the Gentiles” (11:25) has been completed, then Israel will be grafted in again (11:23, 26). Of course, even though Jesus’ mission was officially to the Jews, He did not neglect Gentiles. He healed the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7:24–30). He went out of His way to minister to the woman of Samaria (John 4). He told His disciples of His anticipated work (through them) among the Gentiles (John 10:16), and His Great Commission was to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:18–20). But, both in order of priority and time, the message of Christ came first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. The difference, then, between the two sets of verses can be contrasted in this way:

Problem: Jesus commissioned His disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). Yet over and over again throughout His ministry He insisted that His followers “tell no man” (cf. Matt. 8:4; 16:20; 17:9; Mark 7:36; 8:30; 9:9; Luke 5:14; 8:56; 9:21). Doesn’t this contradict His Great Commission?

Solution: The problem is easily resolved if several things are remembered. First, there was often a stated or implied condition on this command to “tell no man.” Jesus said clearly to His disciples on one occasion, “tell no one ... till the Son of Man ha[s] risen from the dead” (Mark 9:9; cf. Matt. 17:9). There is no contradiction between this and His pronouncement to tell everyone after He rose from the dead (in Matt. 28:19).

Second, sometimes Jesus was simply trying to keep down the crowds so that He could continue His ministry. Mark writes, “He commanded them that they should tell no one; but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it” (Mark 7:36). Likewise, Luke reports that immediately after Jesus instructed the cleansed leper to “tell no one” (Luke 5:14), “then the report went around concerning Him all the more... So He Himself often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed” (vv. 15–16).

Finally, Jesus did not wish to parade His messianic claims, especially among the Jews, since they had a false expectation of a political redeemer who would deliver them from the yoke of Rome

Expanded from John 4:26:
John 4:26—Why did Jesus confess He was the Messiah here, but avoid doing it elsewhere?

Problem: In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) Jesus seemed to go out of His way to avoid claiming He was the Jewish Messiah. He would ask His disciples in private (Matt 16:13) and would sometimes exhort people who discovered it “to tell no man”

Expanded from Matt. 16:20:
Problem: Jesus commissioned His disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). Yet over and over again throughout His ministry He insisted that His followers “tell no man” (cf. Matt. 8:4; 16:20; 17:9; Mark 7:36; 8:30; 9:9; Luke 5:14; 8:56; 9:21). Doesn’t this contradict His Great Commission?

Solution: The problem is easily resolved if several things are remembered. First, there was often a stated or implied condition on this command to “tell no man.” Jesus said clearly to His disciples on one occasion, “tell no one ... till the Son of Man ha[s] risen from the dead” (Mark 9:9; cf. Matt. 17:9). There is no contradiction between this and His pronouncement to tell everyone after He rose from the dead (in Matt. 28:19).

Second, sometimes Jesus was simply trying to keep down the crowds so that He could continue His ministry. Mark writes, “He commanded them that they should tell no one; but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it” (Mark 7:36). Likewise, Luke reports that immediately after Jesus instructed the cleansed leper to “tell no one” (Luke 5:14), “then the report went around concerning Him all the more... So He Himself often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed” (vv. 15–16).

Finally, Jesus did not wish to parade His messianic claims, especially among the Jews, since they had a false expectation of a political redeemer who would deliver them from the yoke of Rome

Expanded from John 4:26:
John 4:26—Why did Jesus confess He was the Messiah here, but avoid doing it elsewhere?

Problem: In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) Jesus seemed to go out of His way to avoid claiming He was the Jewish Messiah. He would ask His disciples in private (Matt 16:13) and would sometimes exhort people who discovered it “to tell no man” . Yet here in John the woman of Samaria said, “I know that Messiah is coming who is called Christ” (John 4:25). Jesus forthrightly volunteered, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26).

Solution: Here Jesus was in Samaria, not Judea. The Jews of Jesus’ day had a distorted concept of the Messiah, namely, as one who would deliver them from the political oppression of Rome. In this context, Jesus was more careful to make His claims more covert, so as to elicit from His disciples a more spiritual concept of the one who came to redeem His people (cf. Luke 19:10; John 10:10).

Indeed, this is why Jesus so often spoke in parables, so that those who were truly seeking would understand, but those who had a false concept would be confused (see Matt. 13:13). This is why when Jesus performed miracles He would sometimes exhort the person to tell no one, since He did not want to be thronged by the curious. Indeed, Jesus rebuked those who, having seen Him multiply the loaves, wanted to make Him king (John 6:15), declaring that they followed Him “because you ate of the loaves and were filled” (v. 26). However, in Samaria, where this false Jewish concept of a political deliverer from Rome who could feed the masses did not prevail, Jesus did not hesitate to claim that He indeed was the true Messiah. Furthermore, Jesus said this to only one Samaritan woman in private, not to the masses of Jews in Judea.

Nonetheless, Jesus did claim to be the Messiah in public, in Judea and to the Jews. Usually, however, His claim was more covert, trying to get them to discover for themselves who He was. However, when the chips were down and it became necessary to declare Himself before the high priest, Jesus explicitly answered the question “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” by declaring, “I am [the Christ]” (Mark 14:61–62; cf. Matt. 26:64; cf. Luke 22:70).

. On one occasion, they even wanted to make Him king by force because of the signs which He did (see John 6:14–15). Since that was not His purpose, He withdrew from them, for His purpose was to die on the cross (see Mark 10:45 and John 10:10, 15).

. Yet here in John the woman of Samaria said, “I know that Messiah is coming who is called Christ” (John 4:25). Jesus forthrightly volunteered, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26).

Solution: Here Jesus was in Samaria, not Judea. The Jews of Jesus’ day had a distorted concept of the Messiah, namely, as one who would deliver them from the political oppression of Rome. In this context, Jesus was more careful to make His claims more covert, so as to elicit from His disciples a more spiritual concept of the one who came to redeem His people (cf. Luke 19:10; John 10:10).

Indeed, this is why Jesus so often spoke in parables, so that those who were truly seeking would understand, but those who had a false concept would be confused (see Matt. 13:13). This is why when Jesus performed miracles He would sometimes exhort the person to tell no one, since He did not want to be thronged by the curious. Indeed, Jesus rebuked those who, having seen Him multiply the loaves, wanted to make Him king (John 6:15), declaring that they followed Him “because you ate of the loaves and were filled” (v. 26). However, in Samaria, where this false Jewish concept of a political deliverer from Rome who could feed the masses did not prevail, Jesus did not hesitate to claim that He indeed was the true Messiah. Furthermore, Jesus said this to only one Samaritan woman in private, not to the masses of Jews in Judea.

Nonetheless, Jesus did claim to be the Messiah in public, in Judea and to the Jews. Usually, however, His claim was more covert, trying to get them to discover for themselves who He was. However, when the chips were down and it became necessary to declare Himself before the high priest, Jesus explicitly answered the question “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” by declaring, “I am [the Christ]” (Mark 14:61–62; cf. Matt. 26:64; cf. Luke 22:70).

. On one occasion, they even wanted to make Him king by force because of the signs which He did (see John 6:14–15). Since that was not His purpose, He withdrew from them, for His purpose was to die on the cross (see Mark 10:45 and John 10:10, 15).