The Aaronic Blessing re Water Baptism

“The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” (Number 6:23-26).


Some people will insist that Matthew 28:19 is not the actual baptismal formula, because in the book of Acts we read that people were baptised in Jesus’ name. A closer inspection however, reveals that the word name (onoma), must imply the authority for baptism in Acts, on account of the constantly changing renderings. In Acts 2:38 the 3,000 were commanded to be baptised in (epi) the name “Jesus Christ”, at Acts 8 and 19 they were commanded to be baptised in (eis) the name of the “Lord Jesus,” and in Acts 10 they were baptised in (en) the name of “the Lord.” Also none of these four passages records the words of an actual baptism. At Acts 2 the water baptisms don’t take place until verse 41, where the Holy Spirit here considered the actual baptismal formula of such little importance that he did not see fit to record the actual words, if indeed any were said. So it’s wrong to make passages which only command people to go and get baptised upon the authority of Christ, as the precise wordings of a supposed baptismal ceremony, when they are not.

A direct parallel to Matthew 28:19, and to these four passages in Acts, are found in the book of Numbers. Where we read of the Aaronic blessing which Aaron, as well as the priests and their descendants were to use in perpetuity to bless the people: “On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them. “The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” (Number 6:23-26). What is interesting about this Aaronic blessing, is that we never find this exact wording of this formula repeated again in the Scriptures.

So whenever the Aaronic blessing is used by the priests in Scripture, as it must have been, for verse 23 commands its use in perpetuity, it is simply referred to in a shortened form. This is why we read of Levi blessing the people “in his name” (Deut 10:8), and the priests being commanded “to bless in the name of the LORD,” (Deut 21:5) or “to give a blessing in his name forever.” (1st Chronicles 23:13). God does not need to slavishly repeat the Aaronic blessing word for word, every time that it was used, and so the shortened form refers back to the Numbers 6 formula, just as the four Acts passages, also refer back to the specific baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19.

One final point, would be the further example of the Apostles coming together to “break bread” (Acts 20:7). The Lord’s supper contains two elements; the bread and the wine, however this reference to breaking bread alone, does not mean that they did not partake of the cup as well, for the one naturally implies the other to the Jewish mind. The Jews you see, did not need to slavishly repeat long formulas be they baptismal or Aaronic blessing formulas. For just as “breaking bread” also implies the wine, so too the reference to blessing in his name, or the name of the Lord, also refers specifically to the full Numbers 6:23-26 Aaronic blessing formula. And so likewise, the use of the name “Jesus Christ” or “Lord” or “Lord Jesus” in the book of Acts, also implies the full Matthew 28:19 baptismal formula. I have never found a single Oneness believer, who has been prepared to explain the similarities between these two formulas.

[Praxeas]

Robert, please familiarize yourself with the forum rules here and what is expected of you before you start posting anti-oneness polemics

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Robert, please familiarize yourself with the forum rules here and what is expected of you before you start posting anti-oneness polemics

My post PROVES that there isn't one baptismal passage anywhere in the book of acts, where people were baptised using the 'Lord jesus Christ formula.' I challenge people to look at my post and to refute it, prove me wrong, if you can. As for being anti-Oneness, well I'm just as anti-Oneness as your anti-Trinitarian, what do you expect from a Trinitarian scuh as myself?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

My post PROVES that there isn't one baptismal passage anywhere in the book of acts, where people were baptised using the 'Lord jesus Christ formula.' I challenge people to look at my post and to refute it, prove me wrong, if you can. As for being anti-Oneness, well I'm just as anti-Oneness as your anti-Trinitarian, what do you expect from a Trinitarian scuh as myself?

Robert, do you see me going to Trinitarian boards all over and posting long LONG anti Trinitarian polemics and telling them they hate God and hate Christ and are not Christians and are a cult and are not saved?????

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

“The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” (Number 6:23-26).


Some people will insist that Matthew 28:19 is not the actual baptismal formula, because in the book of Acts we read that people were baptised in Jesus’ name. A closer inspection however, reveals that the word name (onoma), must imply the authority for baptism in Acts, on account of the constantly changing renderings. In Acts 2:38 the 3,000 were commanded to be baptised in (epi) the name “Jesus Christ”, at Acts 8 and 19 they were commanded to be baptised in (eis) the name of the “Lord Jesus,” and in Acts 10 they were baptised in (en) the name of “the Lord.” Also none of these four passages records the words of an actual baptism. At Acts 2 the water baptisms don’t take place until verse 41, where the Holy Spirit here considered the actual baptismal formula of such little importance that he did not see fit to record the actual words, if indeed any were said. So it’s wrong to make passages which only command people to go and get baptised upon the authority of Christ, as the precise wordings of a supposed baptismal ceremony, when they are not.

A direct parallel to Matthew 28:19, and to these four passages in Acts, are found in the book of Numbers. Where we read of the Aaronic blessing which Aaron, as well as the priests and their descendants were to use in perpetuity to bless the people: “On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them. “The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” (Number 6:23-26). What is interesting about this Aaronic blessing, is that we never find this exact wording of this formula repeated again in the Scriptures.

So whenever the Aaronic blessing is used by the priests in Scripture, as it must have been, for verse 23 commands its use in perpetuity, it is simply referred to in a shortened form. This is why we read of Levi blessing the people “in his name” (Deut 10:8), and the priests being commanded “to bless in the name of the LORD,” (Deut 21:5) or “to give a blessing in his name forever.” (1st Chronicles 23:13). God does not need to slavishly repeat the Aaronic blessing word for word, every time that it was used, and so the shortened form refers back to the Numbers 6 formula, just as the four Acts passages, also refer back to the specific baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19.

One final point, would be the further example of the Apostles coming together to “break bread” (Acts 20:7). The Lord’s supper contains two elements; the bread and the wine, however this reference to breaking bread alone, does not mean that they did not partake of the cup as well, for the one naturally implies the other to the Jewish mind. The Jews you see, did not need to slavishly repeat long formulas be they baptismal or Aaronic blessing formulas. For just as “breaking bread” also implies the wine, so too the reference to blessing in his name, or the name of the Lord, also refers specifically to the full Numbers 6:23-26 Aaronic blessing formula. And so likewise, the use of the name “Jesus Christ” or “Lord” or “Lord Jesus” in the book of Acts, also implies the full Matthew 28:19 baptismal formula. I have never found a single Oneness believer, who has been prepared to explain the similarities between these two formulas.

Alister MacGrath (mind you no friend to Oneness People) believes that the Matthew 28:19 was directly connected to the OT equivalent of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

In essence Matthews version of the command was to baptize individuals into the name (Jesus) of the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

On another note, the name Lord Jesus Christ actually fulfills the Matthew 28:19 commandment.

Lord-Adonani/Jehovah/Father
Jesus-Son
Christ-Holy Spirit, anointed one

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by keith4him

Alister MacGrath (mind you no friend to Oneness People) believes that the Matthew 28:19 was directly connected to the OT equivalent of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

In essence Matthews version of the command was to baptize individuals into the name (Jesus) of the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

On another note, the name Lord Jesus Christ actually fulfills the Matthew 28:19 commandment.

Lord-Adonani/Jehovah/Father
Jesus-Son
Christ-Holy Spirit, anointed one

Bump!

Originally Posted by keith4him

In essence Matthews version of the command was to baptize individuals into the name (Jesus) of the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

On another note, the name Lord Jesus Christ actually fulfills the Matthew 28:19 commandment.

Lord-Adonani/Jehovah/Father
Jesus-Son
Christ-Holy Spirit, anointed one

Keith, your simply stating this doesn't constitute any proof, and you need to PROVE your claims from the Bible. Secondly, nowhere anywhere int he book of Acts dowe ever find any baptismal formula referred to with the brief exception of Acts 19:2-3.

Personally, I wouldn't even regard any of these four verses as true baptismal passages, for taking Acts 2:38 by way of example, the actual baptisms took place at Acts 2:41 and not at 2:38 as you’ve claimed, which merely commands baptism. So verse 38 is a ‘dry’ verse without water.

Acts 2:38. In (epi) ..... Jesus Christ
Acts 8. In (eis) .... Lord Jesus
Acts 10:48. In (en) ..... Lord.
Acts 19. In (eis) …. Lord Jesus.

Please do tell me Keith how can this be a fixed baptismal formula, which is so important that our very salvation depends upon it's exact usage, when these passages vary so widely? I believe that the Greek ‘onoma’ translated here as ‘name,’ implies the authority for baptism. We certainly have a precedent, for ‘name’ (onoma) is directly associated with authority / power at Acts 4:7.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Keith, your simply stating this doesn't constitute any proof, and you need to PROVE your claims from the Bible. Secondly, nowhere anywhere int he book of Acts dowe ever find any baptismal formula referred to with the brief exception of Acts 19:2-3.

Personally, I wouldn't even regard any of these four verses as true baptismal passages, for taking Acts 2:38 by way of example, the actual baptisms took place at Acts 2:41 and not at 2:38 as you’ve claimed, which merely commands baptism. So verse 38 is a ‘dry’ verse without water.

Acts 2:38. In (epi) ..... Jesus Christ
Acts 8. In (eis) .... Lord Jesus
Acts 10:48. In (en) ..... Lord.
Acts 19. In (eis) …. Lord Jesus.

Please do tell me Keith how can this be a fixed baptismal formula, which is so important that our very salvation depends upon it's exact usage, when these passages vary so widely? I believe that the Greek ‘onoma’ translated here as ‘name,’ implies the authority for baptism. We certainly have a precedent, for ‘name’ (onoma) is directly associated with authority / power at Acts 4:7.

ANymore than you simply stating things and not poving them. You think that stating something as a fac makes it a fact and that you don't need to show how your statements are true

Originally Posted by Praxeas

ANymore than you simply stating things and not poving them. You think that stating something as a fac makes it a fact and that you don't need to show how your statements are true

Well it's a fact (as I've stated) that the refernces to water baptism arn't some fixed formula as Oneness folk will claim, the wordings and also the Greek prepositions both constantly change:

Acts 2:38. In (epi) ..... Jesus Christ
Acts 8. In (eis) .... Lord Jesus
Acts 10:48. In (en) ..... Lord.
Acts 19. In (eis) …. Lord Jesus.

Please explain why they change.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Well it's a fact (as I've stated) that the refernces to water baptism arn't some fixed formula as Oneness folk will claim, the wordings and also the Greek prepositions both constantly change:

Acts 2:38. In (epi) ..... Jesus Christ
Acts 8. In (eis) .... Lord Jesus
Acts 10:48. In (en) ..... Lord.
Acts 19. In (eis) …. Lord Jesus.

Please explain why they change.

It's your claim only that this Aaronic blessing somehow applies to water baptism here. You have failed to prove that, yet you claim it is a fact