Just ten days after Jesus gave the command found in Matt 28.19 (where he said "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost") Peter stood to preach on the day of Pentecost. He wasn't alone for the 11 other Apostles, who also heard Jesus give the command of Matt 28.19, were present as Peter preached Acts 2.38 (where he said "be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ"). Why did Peter seemingly contradict what Jesus had commanded? Was he confused? Or was he being openly disobedient? Had he forgotten? None make sense because he was full of the Holy Ghost and wouldn't have been confused or disobedient and it was only 10 days. My answer as to why he seemingly contradicted what Jesus commanded is that he understood the command in a different way than is now commonly understood. The majority now understand the command to mean that the words of Jesus from Matt 28 are to be used in a baptismal formula, and that the words of the command are to be repeated during the baptism. It appears, from Peters response to Jesus command, that he understood Jesus to mean that baptism should be done in Jesus name. To obey what Jesus commanded Peter thought that he should baptize in Jesus name. If Peter didn't get what Jesus commanded right, if he didn't understand right, then what else didn't he get right? We have to believe that the one Jesus chose to be his leader of the church got it right. And the 11 Apostles who were there and heard what Peter said didn't say to him, "Hey Peter thats not what Jesus told us to do." No one contradicted or tried to stop Peter. They too must have had the same understanding of Jesus command that Peter had. In Matt 28 he had said "baptizing them in the name". He didn't say 'names' but 'name', singular. Technically Father, Son ,Holy Ghost are not names,(though we do use Father, Son as names sometimes) but they are titles. None of us have any hesitation in responding with the answer 'Jesus' when asked 'what is the name of the Son of God?' Jesus was conveying to the Apostles via Matt 28.19 that the name of the Father, the name of the Son, the name of the Holy Ghost was the name of Jesus. The Apostles understood this and that is why they baptized in Jesus name. If you've been taught that God is three persons from the time you were knee high to a grasshopper then it makes sense that baptism would be done in the name of the three persons. But the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't compiled complete until 325 AD and it wasn't in the Apostles understanding that God was three persons. The One who claimed to be the 'I AM', who claimed to be one with the Father, was standing right in front of them and they knew no other name than the Name which was above all names. That name had healed people and cast out devils as they prayed and to them it held power. No one is healed or has power over devils using the titles. It was only natural for them to baptize in Jesus name. When you think of it, which would be the better choice: 1. be baptized in the Name above all Names or 2. be baptized in a name which isn't really a name but a title?
