ACT 8:16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Why were they not baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Two things … The key to the account in
Acts is in the word
receive(ed). Two different words used in the Greek ....
dechomai is a subjective reception
lambanō is objective reception.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Verse 14 the word
receive = dechomai = a subjective reception.
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the holy spirit
Receive =
lambanō = Receive into manifestation
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received (
lambanō)
the holy spirit
In the English it looks the same, but the Greek words make the distinction.
The evidence or manifestation of receiving the spirit was to speak in tongues. When Peter and John heard they had received
dechomai the spirit, but not received
lambanō they came down to Samaria to find out why.
=========================================================
Regarding
Mat 28:19 I believe it’s a forgery of which there are a handful of them scattered about …. almost exclusively in the NT.
With that said, I have no absolute proof… (proof being
→ that it was not in earlier or original manuscripts, which unfortunately the earliest
complete copy
(Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century) ...so I will not totally dismiss it…But the biggest indicator (other than commentators… and the words of Eusebius 260-340 A.D.) is the fact that the apostles totally ignored what Jesus said to them
~ IF ~ that was what Jesus stated in 28:19. To me that is huge and a willful disobedience of what Christ instructed them what to do shortly before He was received up into the heavens. They hung around when Jesus said “
not many days hence” without even knowing how many days that would be…and yet, they don’t carry out His instruction for baptism??? ….Ever! ....It’s not recorded anywhere in Acts or any of the epistles.
So that is why I am skeptical…. There are other things (below) but it just doesn’t fit that the apostles would blow that off.
The writings come from
Eusebius 260-340 A.D, the Bishop of Caesarea, who is called the father of Church History due to his extensive writings on the subject.
Eusebius quotes from Matthew a number of times in his writings. He quotes
Mat 28:19 as
"Go disciple ye all the nations in my name” 17 times including an oration in Praise of Constantine.
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching → “whether Christ was God or a creation of God”. …..If the manuscripts that he had in front of him were written as
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…. Eusebius never would have quoted it as saying
“in my name”
Oration in Praise of Constantine ↓
"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator, or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.' The Oration in Praise of Constantine, Chap. 16, page 907-908 of The Master Christian Library, Version 6.02
*A few other notations from various sources*
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
