Saturday, December 9, 2023

Yo Cheng on the "In the name of" formula and its association with baptism

  

Regarding the meaning of “in the name” formula associated with baptism ritual, there are three principal views on the significance of the phrase. The first view sees the meaning of transference of ownership and relationship of belonging in the phrase. According to this view, a baptised person becomes the property of the Lord Jesus like a sum of money paid to a person’s bank account. Wilhem Heitmüller is the proponent of this view, who argues on the basis of the Greco-Roman documents that use banking terminology to refer to the name of the person who disposes an account in a bank. With this financial undertone, the baptism into the name of Jesus, then, means that a candidate who is baptised is transferred into the possession of another person.

 

The second view probes into the original meaning of Semantic expressions of “into the name of” (Heb. le shem) vis-à-vis the Greek counterpart (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) in the Old Testament, Mishnah, and Talmud, with the basic meaning of “with respect to.” It has a wide range of applications used in various context, denoting the fundamental reference or purpose of action or rite. Used in baptismal context, the phrase “referred to an authority behind the rite, who conferred significance on the rite and made the formula meaningful.” Thus, the authority behind the baptism ritual is linked with the person of Jesus Christ and his salvific works (i.e. death and resurrection) and his teachings. Finally, the third view sees the inextricable connection between Christ’s salvific work and his name, and thus a person who is baptised into the name of Jesus is to be endowed with benefits of salvation accomplished by Christ.

 

Since this study uses the performance-oriented ritual theories, we can interpret the “in the name” formula as part of a crucial element in the baptism performance that affects the presence of Jesus in the one who baptizes. As we noted earlier in ritual actor, the ritual agent in baptism involve both human and divine persons. The human person administers the rite of baptism in the name of Jesus, whose divine presence is made manifested by the meditation of the Spirit as it dwells in the baptised candidates (Acts 10:44-47; 11:13-17). We will discuss more on the agency of the Spirit in later section, but it suffices to note that the invocation of the name of Jesus is a locus point in which the synergetic work of divine and human agents in the ritual performance manifests itself.

 

Now we have discussed the meaning of the name formula in baptism, a natural question arises regarding the title κύριος in the name formula, whether it is intended for the divine identity of Jesus. To begin, we note how the New Testament writers apply kyriος-title to Jesus.

 

In the gospels various figures have been addressed as κύριε (which translated as Sir), including the earthly Jesus (Mark 7:28; Matt 15:27; 8:6,8). However, the title takes on religious overtone when Jesus’s disciples acknowledge him to be the κύριος, after having witnessed the miraculous works of Jesus (Luke 5:8; 12:41-42). In such cases, the gospel writers read the post-Easter experience of Jesus into the account of his’ earthly ministry. In Paul’s letters, we see a wider application of kyrios-title to Jesus in all stages of his salvific works: the preincarnational kyrios Jesus in the form of God (Phil 2:10-11), the ever-continuing presence of “the Lord” Jesus amongst the Christ community expressed in the prepositional phrases: ἐν κυρίῳ, σὺν κυρίῳ (1 Thess 4:16-17), and the second parousia of kyrios Jesus in the liturgical acclamation μαράναθά (1 Cor 16:22) and proclamation of his death (τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ, 1 Cor 11:23-26).207 Additionally, the more direct linkage of Jesus with κύριος can be seen in Paul’s application of Yahweh texts from the Greek Septuagint that renders the tetragrammaton YHWH as κύριος to Christ as referent. Paul identifies Christ with the divine name of Yahweh (Rom 10:13), with the worship reserved for God (Rom 14:11), with the divine attributes of God (1 Cor 1:31; 2:16; 2 Cor 10:17), and with the lordship of Yahweh over his creation (1 Cor 10:26).

 

Given such intimate connection between Jesus and the God Yahweh in the early Christ movement, how can we understand the relationship between the two: is Jesus recognised as Yahweh himself by early Christ followers or is Jesus somehow a distinct being that participates in the transcendence of Yahweh? According to Cape David Bryan, since Paul uses kyrios that was employed to translate the divine name in LXX and in other contemporary Jewish writings as a Christological title, “[i]t suggests that he believed that Christ was in some sense Yahweh Himself, manifest as the Messiah.” This is seen in the devotion of Jesus in the earliest days of Christ movement that gives adoration and worship to him reserved for God (Rom 1:3-4; 10:9-10; 1 Cor 1:2; 5:4; 11:20; 16:22; Phil 2:6-11). Whereas Bryan identifies Jesus with Yahweh himself, other scholars have recognised the distinction and unity between the two. Fitzmyer, having examined the kyrios title for Christ, observes that “Jesus as sharing in some sense in the transcendence of Yahweh, that he was somehow on a par with him. This, however, is meant in an egalitarian sense, not in an identifying sense, since Jesus was never hailed as אבא . It involves a Gleichsetzung, but not an Identifizierung.” Similarly, C. Kavin Rowe notes the differentiation and unity between God and Jesus identity in the Lukan narrative (Luke 1 and 2) regarding the ministry of Jesus through the shared title kyrios. We propose that a more nuanced understanding of Jesus and his link with YHWH through kyrios title should be adopted. First, we need to recognise that there is an ambiguity in the New Testament regarding the exact relation between Jesus and God. At the one hand, there is a strong identification of Jesus with God by ascribing him the adoration, divine attributes, and redemptive role of God. On the other hand, Jesus is clearly a separate entity distinct from God as seen in the salutations in Paul’s epistle greetings (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:1-2; Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) and in those instances where Jesus is described as an instrument through whom God redeems the whole human race (Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7). Second, this ambiguity suggests that early Christ followers are binitarian, worshipping God alongside kyrios Christ (1 Cor 8:6). Finally, the exact relation between God and Christ as articulated in the Nicene Creed constitutes a later endeavour by the Christ followers to clarify the ambiguity left from the New Testament era. (Yo Chen, “The Ritual Dimension of Union with Christ in Paul’s Thought” [PhD Dissertation; The University of Edinburgh, 2021], 43-46)

 

Blog Archive