By mentioning Acts, you reminded me of a past discussion I had with a vehement atheist that attempted to convince all in the thread that the apostles willfully disobeyed the specific command of our anointed Savior. Their point and contention was a simple one. I'm paraphrasing, but they asked, "Why did the apostles baptize in Jesus' name only when Jesus instructed them to baptize, specifically,'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'?" This atheist could easily be deemed as one that lacked understanding (and was by some), but nonetheless. Their question was a valid one.As for the baptism that you mentioned that is so much a essential part of our salvation...it's all IN the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only as there is no "they" to give homage to in this action, Colossians 3:17 instructs us that what so ever we do in Word or in deed do all IN the name of the Lord Jesus givibg thanks to God and the fatber by him, because again all AUTHORITY is in the name of JESUS CHRIST and that IS the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy ghost.
EDITED FOR SPACE
First, I believe that their primary goal was to create more dissension between believers, because (if memory serves me correctly) we were actually discussing whether or not a "trinity" truly exists. Obviously, Matthew 28:19 is a favored verse in such discussions. Regardless, they brought one major point from the verse that we had no choice but to accept.
In Hebrew and Greek, the simple term "and" is used to indicate a continuation. And we can easily see that the term "and" is twice used in the construct of the sentence. And not only that, but a comma is used, too, which indicates a natural division. Therefore, they contended that the verse could be easily reconstructed to read as such:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Ghost."
They were right.
They would repeat, as one point of their argument, how that Father's name is "Jehovah," and that the Son's name is "Jesus," but that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a name as Father and Son do. Of course, they would then ask how anyone can baptize and be baptized in all three names when all three don't have names? Then, they would return to their initial argument, accusing the apostles of willfully disobeying our anointed Savior's "specific command." Understanding that the interpretation of the term "name" can exceed that of a personal identification, but can also be used to indicate power and authority, I discussed the matter with the atheist. Sadly, the discussion ended with an agreement to disagree. Even now, I don't believe the atheist cared, either way. But, for the sake of Truth, I did what I believed necessary.
All in all, I understand your point. But, I believe it's important that we remember that all things is to, in the end, give glory to Father. The woman gives glory to the man. Man gives glory to our anointed Savior. Our anointed Savior gives glory to Father. I call this "The Divine Trickle Effect."
Please and if you will. Allow me to slightly alter these next few verses, and tell me if they make sense to you. The alterations will appear in brackets.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a [authority] which is above every [authority];
That at the [authority] of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
KEY POINTS: "..highly exalted him," and "..is Lord."
Also, keep in mind that "Jesus" was a most common name in Israel. And secondly, he wasn't the only one that was believed to be the promised Messiah of prophecy. Therefore, I believe many of these verses that use the term "name" must be directing us to a deeper interpretation.
What say you, my Brother?