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)