Baptism in the "name" of ...

[steadfast7]

What's the traditional understanding of being baptized "in the name of" the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

What does "name" mean in this sense?

- is it in the sense of, "Halt, in the name of the law!"
- are we baptized into a Triune formula?
- or, is 'name' merely a circumlocution for the actual person(s) being named?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It can refer to the authority of the Institution, something akin to your first sense. The authority to perform a Christian baptism has been given to the church.

It is most directly an ascription of ownership, as when you sign your name or put some personal identifier on some item of value. God puts his name on his subjects, which is a kind of warning to his enemies, "don't touch what is Mine, or face the consequences." It is a brand, a symbol of connection, of belonging, of quality.

 

[steadfast7]

Are there any other new testament passages that use 'in the name of' in this authority/institutional sense? (sorry, no bible software on internet cafe computer in India

Don't most uses of 'name' in Scripture refer to the person himself? .. I'm thinking of psalms-speak

 

[Contra_Mundum]

As I tried to indicate, I think the main issue is identification and ownership, which is rather "personal." And see below.

But to your question,

Jn.14:13-14 "Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." cf. 15:16; 16:23.​

We are coming to the Father, and asking for things as if we are the Son. Of course, none of us is the Son; but he has given us permission to use our identification with him, to presume on his rights/authority and access.

What does it mean to call on the name of the Lord? e.g Ps.116:13,17. Sure, it refers to a specific Divinity, and excludes others. There's something to be said for reading the baptismal formula in that way. But it seems to me that the matter of authority takes that "identifying" the one true God a step further. The name is applied to the person, but that can't be for identification AS the deity--something different is being stated. Something akin to these statements by Isaiah:

Is.65:1 "I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, "Here am I, here am I," to a nation that was not called by my name.​

Clearly, there is a nation, a people, who were called by the name of God. Israel? Yes, indubitably, but not because they went planted in the world identified as "Jehovah" or any such. But as 2Chr.7:14 states, "my people who are called by my name." Now, the Gentiles will also be called by that name.

Is.43:6-7 "I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."​

Again, even if one is indisposed to recognize that this is a promise that extends beyond the ethnic Jews, it is a text that recognizes that the people of God are recognized as those who bear his name, in some sense.

Is.48:2 "For they call themselves after the holy city, and stay themselves on the God of Israel; the LORD of hosts is his name."​

Here, the people (who are actually faithless) identify themselves by the city of God, by the body of the faithful, the residence of God, the person of God, the name of God. Is this not a "taking of the name of the Lord in vain?" Does this not presume upon a relationship that has been assailed by faithlessness and wickedness (cf.v22)?

A good bit of the imagery in the following chapters borrows from marriage. In marriage, the bride (traditionally) takes her husband's name. She is called by him to whom she now belongs, but not so as to be confused with his person. But this union brings about shared authority (among other things), which she borrows from him.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

From my understanding when we are commanded to do things "In the name of" someone you are acting on their behalf or by their authority. The authority for baptism is the Triune God and therefore we are baptized in that name. Names in ancient cultures tended to have more meaning that we have on ours now. That is why we are told not to take the Lords name in vain. You can't separate God's attributes and self from His name.

 

[steadfast7]

thanks for the responses.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I have another question regarding this, I know that most churches/denomination/confessions state that baptism is to be done with the formula "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost". Would using the formula "in the name of Jesus Christ" be considered invalid? if so why? I understand that some heretical group such as oneness pentacostal have used this formula but I don't see that as an argument to reject it in itself. As I see it the name of Jesus holds the authority of the Triune God and not only the person of the Son.

any thoughts? If this has already been discussed elsewhere could you point me to the thread? thanks

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

I have another question regarding this, I know that most churches/denomination/confessions state that baptism is to be done with the formula "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost". Would using the formula "in the name of Jesus Christ" be considered invalid? if so why? I understand that some heretical group such as oneness pentacostal have used this formula but I don't see that as an argument to reject it in itself. As I see it the name of Jesus holds the authority of the Triune God and not only the person of the Son.

Jesus command was to do baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. No getting around that.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I understand that but Peter also said to repent and be baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). I believe that the words in Acts are as authoratative as those in Matthew, since both were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost therefore there must be some way to reconcile the two logically and scripturaly. I'm not arguing which formula is the best, I was just wondering if there is sound exegetical reason for rejecting the formula of "in the name of Jesus Christ" other than "that how it was always done" or simply pointing to Matthew 28:19 without explaining that instances in acts where it seems the apostles are advocating the baptism in Jesus' name.

And I guess the question would arise does the names of God given in the bible (Jehovah, Yahweh, Jesus etc) only bears the authority of one specific persons within the Godhead? Although I do recognize the difference between the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I don't think they have different authorities. If my reasoning is wrong could you please explain?

thanks