We as Apostolics must understand the time in which we live. Recent statistics show that a half a billion people claim to be affiliated with the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.’ In addition, a new development has broken down denominational barriers in the last decade in an unparalleled way. In what church growth analysts have called the “Third Wave”, Christians of all stripes are experiencing Pentecostal worship, speaking in tongues, and manifestations of healing. It is not surprising then that more people than ever before are being baptized in Jesus name. 2 Unfortunately, many participants in “things-Pentecostal” do not consider doctrinal understanding of their experience important. 3 While it is certain that God is working in the Christian world in an unprecedented way, we must question whether syncretic teaching and lack of understanding concerning truth is in fact God’s will. Of particular concern in this paper is the confusion that surrounds baptism in Jesus’ name. Some people are being baptized id Jesus’ name by those who have no understanding of its significance; others are baptized with some kind of conflated baptismal formula, invoking the titles “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” and the name of Jesus. Still others are being baptized in the name of “Yahshua”, the alleged Hebrew name of Jesus; adherents to such a position insist that those who are “merely” baptized in the name of Jesus are in fact not saved.
Almost a century has passed since Pentecostal pioneers awakened to the understanding of baptism in Jesus’ name. This revelation stripped away the creeds that cloaked God in trinitarian language and illuminated through baptism the true identity of Jesus Christ. Although the Apostolic movement suffered misunderstanding and persecution, they held their position, for they knew too much to do otherwise; they realized the splendor and power in the Name, understanding the necessity of having the name of Jesus invoked over every believer in baptism. This is our story, our tradition; any one now reading this paper is too young to have been there at the beginning. It is a short one-century tradition, but it is ours. 4 Apostolics have rightfully insisted on the necessity of those who baptize others in Jesus’ name to understand the importance of this biblical doctrine. As a young person growing up in a Pentecostal church, on several occasions I heard my grandfather, S. G. Norris, give the “lesson” why it was essential for someone to have the “revelation” in order to baptize another in Jesus’ name. While I appreciate this heritage, it is incumbent upon our generation to explore this understanding afresh. Otherwise, a “new issue” becomes old, our young people will fail to see its importance; the revelation will be reduced to a preacher’s sound byte that guarantees a chorus of “amens” — but a truth with no conviction or depth of understanding in the pulpit or the pew.
What should our attitude be toward those who invoke the name of Jesus in baptism wrongfully or without understanding? That is a hard question to answer. It may be impossible to place everyone who does this into a neatly defined category. There are those who do not know the Lord, who like the seven sons of Sceva attempt to merchandise the name of Jesus. These people have no authority. There are others who have been taught truth but do not value what they know. It is not likely that we will influence those who are “going away”–those compromising truth-for they do not receive instruction. But what should be our response to people who we see “coming our direction”, those who have a partial understanding of what Jesus’ name baptism is all about?
Many Apostolics sense that we are living in the time when the greatest revelation of the name of the Lord will take place; like Aquila and Priscilla who taught Apollos the way more perfectly, it may be that God has “brought us into the kingdom for such a time as this”. 5 It may also be that God has begun in some quarters to do a work outside of what we know about. It is prudent to be cautious; still, God does not need our permission to work. The disciples once discovered a man invoking the name of Jesus who did not follow them. Although the disciples of Jesus were concerned enough to forbid this individual from using the name of Jesus, their Master issued a cautionary warning to the disciples about their attitude: “Forbid him not…(f)or he that is not against us is on our part.” 6 We must prayerfully hold to the absolute importance of baptism in Jesus name, even while reaching out to those coming our direction. The principle of “grace without compromise” is a hard platform to stand on, but it surely must be what the Lord would have us do.
If a teaching is clearly heretical, we should say so. One group mentioned above suggests that baptism must be administered, not in the name of Jesus, but rather the Hebrew Yahshua in order to be valid. If just the right words, language, framing of the utterance, stress and pronunciation in the “original language” is necessary when speaking the name of Jesus in baptism, then invoking the name of Jesus has become the equivalent of an “incantation”. This is not a casual mistake; rather it is a blasphemous misrepresentation of what the name of Jesus is all about. This issue has been adequately addressed in a recent book by Daniel Seagraves and in a previous article by David Bernard. 7
This paper will address the question: “What is the significance when the name of the Lord is invoked over a person?” While baptism in Jesus’ name occurs only in the New Testament, the entire Bible is replete with principles about the covenant relationship that occurs related to “invoking the name of the Lord”. We will attempt to show the roots and significance of this concept in the Old Testament in order to highlight its New Testament importance. Because the paper is limited in length, at times evidence will be offered tersely; an attempt will be made to argue only that for which there is some disagreement. The intent is to give as much explanatory information as possible in the space allowed without duplicating a lot of research that has already been done. Although the primary focus of the research is the meaning of “invoking the name of the Lord”, along the way the paper will address other issues. By way of comparison it will become clear why someone should not be baptized in the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost or in the name of “Yahshua”; by defining what is true and why, it is easy to see why other positions should be rejected.
When Was the Name of the Lord Revealed?
The Old Testament covenant name of God is derived from the four Hebrew consonants: (1), The King James Version sometimes translates this name of God as Jehovah; more often though, translators use the capital letters LORD or GOD to designate Other translations of the Bible render this name Yahweh. In this paper, an attempt will be made to largely use the language of the King James Version as much as possible in the body of the paper, while giving more technical explanations in the endnotes. One exception is that we will use the name Yahweh interchangeably with LORD to express the Hebrew
When was Yahweh first revealed as the name of God in the Old Testament? Some have suggested that this name was not known until Exodus 6:3, when God revealed it to Moses. The LORD said, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by the name of Jehovah in the original Hebrew] was I not made known unto them.” If one takes this text as it has been translated in the King James Version, this verse becomes very problematic. Taken at face value, not one of the great men in Genesis knew this Hebrew name for God. The problem, of course, is that Genesis simply does not bear this out. Although it is represented by LORD rather than Jehovah, this Hebrew name is used throughout Genesis, clear back to the creation account (Genesis 2:7). It is used numerous times before the flood, as well as throughout the accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is impossible to argue that Abraham did not know the name of Yahweh, for he speaks this divine name. A typical example is in Genesis 15:8, where Abraham is recorded saying, “Lord GOD Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it [the land that Yahweh promised him]?” He could not have spoken a name he did not know. This conversation was not supplied by Moses, by say, simply adding the name of God that was revealed at a later time. While one might argue that Moses used Yahweh in the narrative because that name was revealed to him, Moses would never have put this name in the mouth of the patriarchs if in fact they did not know it. To make such a claim seriously jeopardizes our understanding of verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. If the text records that Abraham called God Yahweh then he did in fact know Him by that name, the covenant name of God.
What does Exodus 6:3 mean then? While commentators differ on the interpretation, Jamieson Fausset Brown’s Commentary on the Whole Bible [hereafter JFB) suggests that the passage–rather than being a statement that the patriarchs did not know Yahweh–could be written as a question: “…by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them?” To rephrase the statement that the patriarchs did not know the name Jehovah into this kind of question “solves” the problem; unfortunately this solution doesn’t square with the principle idea in the narrative of Exodus 3 that God is revealing His name. Another possible meaning offered by JFB and others is that in this text God was giving a deeper revelation of the meaning of His name 9 God was essentially saying to Moses, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know me as Jehovah in the way that you will know Me.” I propose that this is in fact what is going on in the Exodus account. God revealed Himself in a new way. While He had a covenant relationship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob individually, what He did in Exodus was unique in the history of the world. God called a people into covenant, who were nothing but slaves; He redeemed them from their taskmasters and claimed ownership of them as His special possession. That the revelation of God’s name in Exodus includes the notions of “ownership / redemption / presence” will be argued below.
It is clear from archaeology that the name Yahweh was known from the earliest times, for forms of the name are used in various ways and different places hundreds of years before Moses. Ancient archaeological records of both names and places contain the theophoric element (where Ya–the shortened form of Yahweh–is a component of the word). In order for His name to be so incorporated into such diverse cultures, languages and places, it would have been necessary for the name Yahweh to have been known from ancient time. Indeed, as John Bright notes, “it is a component of numerous Amorite names at Mari and elsewhere….” The form of the name Yahweh, (yhw) also appears in the fourteenth and thirteenth century BC. as a place-name in Egypt as well as in its abbreviated form, ya, at Ebla over two thousand years before
Even the names Israel (Israel) 11 land Jacob (ya akob) l2 contain this name component–this theophoric element. 13 All this should be no real surprise; indeed, Genesis records that the LORD was worshippedfrom the very beginning.
After the fall of humanity and murder of Cain, Genesis 4:26 makes the curious statement: “At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD.” A marginal reading of the King James sometimes provides the translation, “Men began to be called by the name of the LORD.” 14 Claus Westerman writes that the word in the Hebrew translated “At that time” means in “the primeval period”. He further cites Von Rad who suggests that the text means, “Yahweh-worship [was] the primeval religion of humankind in general.” 15 Archaeological evidence in pan confirms what the biblical record teaches: God has always been in a special covenant relationship with people if they would avail themselves of it. And from the very beginning, this relationship was marked by the invoking of the name of the LORD upon His people.
Invoking the Name of the LORD in Ownership
What does it mean to invoke the name of Yahweh? There is a great semantic range to this Hebrew idiom or expression. D. Preman Niles, in his doctoral dissertation on the meaning of Yahweh, proposed several different meanings for invoking the name of Yahweh. It might be done in distress, 16 thanksgiving, 17 it might be used generally as a description of worship, 18 or it might be the name Yahweh was stated as a liturgical pronouncement over His people .19 It is this last case that seems to be going on in Genesis 4, and this is clearly going on in other parts of the Old Testament. It is this kind of invocation of the name of the LORD that has the strongest implications for a New Testament comparison to baptism.
The Hebrew phrase that is translated “to call upon the name of the LORD” consists of just a few words that form a unique Hebrew idiom. Every language has idioms, special phrases that combine words in an unusual way. The meaning of the phrase cannot be found by studying the individual words; rather it is contained in the peculiar syntax (or word order of the phrase). In time these phrases get absorbed into the
language so that they are invisible to the hearer. They are simply known. For instance, I once heard a foreign student ask a tutor, “What does it mean, ‘They are not worth their salt’?” The tutor had to explain at length why those words had a particular meaning to the hearer, but after some minutes the student was still working hard to comprehend. Recently I heard someone say “I will give my hand in marriage…” Most everyone would understand what is meant here, but such a phrase might cause confusion for those unacquainted with the idiom. “Just your hand?” they might ask. “What about the rest of you?” There are hundreds of expressions that we say, and know what they mean, but the special significance is contained in the phrase rather than a literal understanding of each word. The phrase that is translated “…to call upon the name of the LORD…” comes from the Hebrew “liqroh beshem YHWH.” 20 People who do comparative religious study to determine the relationships between religions have noted that this phrase or its equivalent is not duplicated in any of the existing writings of the languages related to Hebrew, nor is this phrase used in the context with worship of any other god. It is the syntax of the phrase [the unique order of the words and the use of the preposition or “beth”) that D. Preman Niles argues gives this special meaning to invoking the name of the Lord. 21 He proposes that in certain instances, although it reads “they called upon the name of the Lord,” in the King James Version, the meaning is that they have covenanted themselves to the
LORD by the fact that the name of the LORD was invoked upon them.
It is not merely petition or request; rather, it was a sacred act where the name of the LORD was pronounced upon the persons themselves. One of the passages of Scripture where this can be clearly seen is in Exodus chapters 33-34; Moses asked the LORD in Exodus 33:18, “I beseech thee, show me thy glory.” To see the glory of God was to see God Himself. Gerhard said that in the Old Testament, the glory of Yahweh can be used as a way to speak of God Himself, and “often amounts to little more than another word for Yahweh.” 22 Moses was asking to experience God in the most profound way possible. In Exodus 33:19, the Lord responded to Moses, “I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.” Note that it is the LORD who promises to proclaim His name upon Moses. Interestingly, the name of the LORD is associated with the glory of the LORD–with His presence. Kittel says of this glory, it is “…often linked with [the concept of the name] when it is desired to magnify the honour [sic] or impressiveness of the divine name (Ps. 66:2; 79:9).”23 What actually happened when the LORD pronounced His name on Moses? Exodus 34:5-7 reads,
And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Here it is Yahweh who proclaims His name. He invokes it over Moses. It was done in a specific manner. Kurt Galling has pointed out that both in Israel and in the ancient Near East, there was a forensic or legal transfer of ownership when the name of a person was proclaimed over a thing or a person. 24
This principle of “ownership” is vital to understand. The Old Testament contains numerous instances where people “called things by their name” when they assumed possession of them. For instance, Joab wanted David to come and finish taking the City of Rabbah lest it would be called by his (Joab’s) name (II Samuel 12:26-31). The implication was that just as Jerusalem was “the city of David” because he captured it, owned it, and called it by his name (cf. 5:9), so there might be some claim of ownership if Joab captured the city of Rabbah. In another instance, Isaiah prophesied a dire time when seven women would take hold of one man and say, “…We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” (Isaiah 4:1). They wanted the legal protection of the name even if they didn’t get any of the benefits.
It is important to note that not only did the LORD invoke His name upon Moses, but Exodus 19-20 records how the LORD invoked His name upon Israel and called them to be His people. In its ancient Near Eastern context, the statement “I am the LORD thy God” (20:3) was similar to but greater than any form used in Hittite Suzerainty treaties. In this kind of treaty a ruler made what the people considered to be a sacred covenant; a nation pledged their loyalty solely to this suzerain–they became “his” people. 25 The LORD entered into such a covenant with Israel. The result of this claim of ownership was, “if ye keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me…” (Exodus 19:5). One lexicon defines the Hebrew word translated “peculiar treasure” in this way: “valued property, peculiar treasure,
which Yahweh has chosen to take unto himself; always used of the people
of Israel.” 26 The LORD entered into covenant. He invoked His name–
Israel became His special property!
Consider this: while in the Old Testament Israel alone belonged to the LORD, there was a prophecy that would have profound influence on a later time. Amos 9:12 reads, “That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.” The word in Hebrew that is translated “heathen” is “goyim”; it is used of the nations that are outside the covenant relationship with God. The prophecy is that peoples who do not enjoy the same covenant relationship that Israel had with Yahweh will be called by the name of the LORD. The Hebrew here literally means the name of the LORD will be pronounced on them. 27 And in doing this, He will own them.
The Name of the LORD and Redemption
In the Exodus story of redemption, the hero is not Moses; it is the LORD. The entire Old Testament is based upon a saving act of God–the act of redeeming His people out of Egypt. John Bowman says, “‘Redemption’ literally refers to the manumission of slaves and in the scriptural context always recalls the redemption of Israel from the bondage of Egypt.” 28 The LORD heard the cries of the people who were enslaved, and revealed Himself to Moses so that by him he could deliver the people. Moses, fearful of rejection, asked on what basis people would listen to him. It was at this point that the LORD revealed Himself as the “I AM”, and methodically taught Moses about Himself. There is no distinction between what the LORD is and what He does. He is a Redeemer. He redeems. He is a Savior. He saves.
The saving act of God included not only drying up the sea, but invoking the name of the LORD over them in covenant. This covenant offered them forgiveness, even after they sinned. While Moses was on Mount Sinai, receiving additional instructions, the people made a golden calf –they forgot to whom they belonged. In Exodus 34, the covenant is renewed. God once again reveals Himself to Moses, invoking His name in one of the most unusual scenes in the Old Testament. The Interpreter ‘s Bible Commentary notes “The revelation, as anticipated (33:19), declares God’s character. The emphasis is upon his power to forgive.” 29 That the LORD forgave Israel is confirmed in Deuteronomy 14:2, where He once again calls them His “peculiar people”, his special possession. In Deuteronomy 26:18-19, this becomes even more clear, where God speaks through Moses for a final time, ensuring the people that they are His:
And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments: And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken.
The LORD is Present in His Name
The invocation of Yahweh was not magic; while other gods could be “conjured”, Yahweh could not. With other religions, sometimes, merely knowing the name of a deity gave a person power over the deity. 30 Most deities possessed many names; this indicated to the worshippers their greatness. Others had secret names which only certain initiates knew of and were able to use. 31 But the LORD could not be made to work by merely mentioning His name. Those who came to the LORD had to come with understanding and reverence. Unlike Canaanite gods, the starting place for communication and prayer with Yahweh was a covenant relationship.
Again, in more primitive religions, the nature of these gods was contained in his or her name so that “…when other gods or even men learn [the name, the gods] come to be fully dependent on them.” 32 Although the LORD did promise to come to His people when they sincerely called upon His name, it was because of His covenant with them. “Thus the name of Yahweh is not an instrument of magic; it is a gift of revelation.” 33 In explaining His identity in Exodus 3, four successive times–once in verse 12 and three times in verse 14 the LORD repeats the theme “I am.” 34 Indeed, there seems to be a relationship between the name Yahweh, and the Hebrew word used to construct “I am”: hayah. 35 As John Durham commented on this verse, “The repetition of these “I AM” verbs, as awkward as it may appear, is entirely intentional. [It] …is just too obvious to be missed, and so he has labored to make it obvious: Yahweh Is.” 36 Durham goes on to say, “Yahweh Is, and this Is-ness means presence.” 37
Yahweh put His name on His people, the temple, and the holy city, so that Israel primarily would understand that they were His. Niles states that “…the pronouncing of the name of Yahweh upon a place (Jeremiah 34: 15), on Israel (Jeremiah 14:9), on the prophet (Jeremiah 15:16), on the temple (I Kings 8:43), and so on, is determined by juridical language for the transfer of property.” 38 This coincided with the practice of what was done in the ancient Near East in general; as Roland de Vaux pointed out, a conqueror would often set up his name in a place that he conquered. 39 When the Book of Deuteronomy explains that the LORD would put His name on the temple, this is exactly what this means. 40 Normally, the presence of a deity in a religion which possessed idols and temples was compelled to meet the seeker at the temple and through the idol. However, Oskar Grether, who did comparative religions with the religion of Israel, 4 41 noted that while Yahweh was worshipped in the temple at Jerusalem, the temple did not represent the presence of Yahweh as it did with other religions. For the God of Israel, His presence would be represented in His name. 42 Even in the temple, a particular piece of furniture was not the guarantor of Yahweh’s presence (not even the ark). Rather, it was the promise that His Name would be there.
How Israel Failed to Use Name of God
Gradually, in the Post-Exilic Period, the people forgot that when the LORD invoked His name upon them it meant He owned them. Ironically, they came to think that they (and they alone) owned the Name of the LORD. Once they did this, they sought to protect this name from casual or carnal use by prohibiting the utterance of Yahweh. Only on the Day of Atonement, behind the veil, could the high priest utter the Name. While the sacred name was written on the mitre of the high priest, no one was allowed to say it. 43 Whenever they read aloud and came to a place in the text where they would have to say the sacred name, 11; they spoke instead the more general word for Lord, Adonai. (This very thing is still standard practice in synagogues today.) Protecting the “exact pronunciation” of Yahweh became an obsession. This secret was passed down among the priests. 44 This distanced Israel from their relationship with the LORD. The overt command of Scripture was to call upon His name. Now, no one was doing it. Much could be said about the temple and even the gold in the temple, but it was not lawful to speak the saving name of the LORD anymore. Hans Bittenhard points out sadly, “There happened to the name of Yahweh precisely what the OT said should not happen. Yahweh became a God with a secret name like any other god. Knowledge of this name became an instrument of power and magic.” 45
Invoking the Name of the LORD in the Old Testarnent–A Summary This paper has argued that the while the phrase “to call upon the name of the LORD” could have a variety of meanings, there was a special way in which this phrase could be used to represent the covenant relationship that Yahweh had with His people. As early as Genesis 4:26, men were called by the name of the LORD. Yahweh specifically invoked His covenant name upon Moses, the nation of Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple. Yahweh revealed more about His name in Exodus 3, where He reveals “I am”–His name is not like other gods. He would be present in His name. Yahweh is Redeemer, and Israel came into existence through the redemptive act of God. They were His special possession. But somewhere along the way, Israel forgot what it meant to be “the people of the Name”. Yahweh’s name did not need the protection they offered it, for He was not interested in keeping the exact pronunciation of His name a secret. Israel traded relationship for religion, and by the time of Jesus’ birth, no one was speaking the Name of the One who redeemed them.
The Revelation of the Name of Jesus
The angels announced to the shepherds of Bethlehem: “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ [Messiah] the Lord” (Luke 2: 11). In this verse Jesus is called “Savior”, “Messiah”, and “Lord”. 46 Matthew records that when Joseph was trying to determine what to do when Mary told him that she was going to have a child (which he assumed to be illegitimate), an angel appeared to him. Not only did he tell Joseph not to fear taking Mary as his wife; he also told him what to name the baby. He said, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21). The Greek word translated Jesus here is written lesous; it may spoken with the sounds “ee-ay-souce” (although certain professors of the writer would cringe at such a pronunciation). No doubt the angel actually spoke to Joseph the Hebrew form of this name: or something like Ya-ho-shua, or Yehushua. This is the same name as Joshua from the Old Testament. We are really uncertain what the vowel sounds should be or what they sounded like. The vowel sounds that we have in the Hebrew text reflect a series of dots and dashes that were added in the ninth and tenth centuries by the Jews in Tiberius. Although they did this to help, they certainly were not a part of the original text, and there is no one who believes that this is how these words were universally pronounced. All we can be reasonably sure of is that this is how the words were pronounced in that century by those men who added the vowel points to the consonantal text. There is some doubt how was vocalized at the time of Christ. 47 For someone to suggest that the “correct” spelling of Jesus’ name is Yahshua is wrong. People that say they know the correct pronunciation are lying. People that say only “correct” pronunciation of Yahshua brings salvation 48 hearken back to the conjuring of pagan religions and have as much hubris as those in the Intertestamental Period, where the name pronunciation of Yahweh was held by only the select few.
What was Jesus called at home and in the community where He grew up? There is much debate about Galilee and its exposure to the Hellenistic world. It used to be thought that Galilee was a sort of “backwater”, not exposed to the cosmopolitan climate of Jerusalem. 49 Most recently, there has been an emphasis linking Galilee with a more Hellenistic influence. There were no doubt different pronunciations of Jesus’ name in Hebrew, for the Galilean was different than that of other parts of the Jesus would have been trilingual. He would have spoken Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. No doubt, Jesus was called by both the Aramaic and Greek form of His name, 51 depending on the speaker. The “name” was not magical; there were lots of other Jewish young men with the same name–nor was a correct pronunciation of the name salvific. The reason His name is significant is that He did what His name meant. Yahweh saves. And in Jesus, Yahweh saves us!
How was the Name of Jesus Invoked? Any time the name of Jesus was used in prayer, in praise, to cast out a demon, etc., the name of Jesus was invoked. But how was the name of Jesus invoked in ownership, like the name Yahweh was in the Old Testament?” Norman Fox, in the entry on “Baptism” in The New Schaff-Herzag Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, writing about the “Significance of Christian Baptism”, says,
“The Greek phrase baptizein en [to baptize in] or epi toi onomati Iesou [in the name of Jesus] means that the act of baptism takes place with the utterance of the name of Jesus; baptizein eis to onama Iesou [baptism into the name of Jesus] means that the person baptized enters into the relation of belonging to Christ, of being his property. All three formulas are alike in so far as the baptized are subject to the power and efficacy of Jesus, who is now their Lord.” 52 While the early Palestinian community baptized using the Aramaic form of the name of Jesus, by the time Luke wrote the Book of Acts, it is apparent that people around the Mediterranean world were baptizing in the name of Jesus, using the Greek form. Lars Hartmann makes this clear in his article on “Baptism” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, (now the standard academic dictionary for every seminary library, as well as universities with emphases in religion). For Hartmann, while the original Palestinian community baptized in the Aramaic form of the name of Jesus, the fact that there are so many different usages of the Greek prepositions [see above in the citation from Schaff-Herzogg) is an indication that it was translated from the Aramaic into the Greek. 53 The method of communication in Mediterranean world was Greek, they used a Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), the apostles all preached in Greek, and when they were baptized, they were baptized in the name of Jesus, using the Greek language. It was not necessary to be baptized in Jesus name using the Aramaic (or Hebrew) form of Jesus; rather, it was the invocation of that Name that was important. Hartmann offers three reasons why we may adduce that the name of Jesus was invoked audibly over the person getting baptized. He cites James 2:7, which indicates that the name of Jesus was called over someone in baptism; 54 second, he notes that in the Mishnah, a similar formula was used where a person verbally spoke the name of the kind of offering that was given. 55 Third, he takes I Corinthians 1: 13, where Paul asks, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” to rhetorically show that the One that was crucified, and the One whose name was used in baptism was the same Person–Jesus. Paul did not baptize many people in Corinth “…Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.” (verse 15). Rather, people were to know that it was Jesus’ name that was invoked in baptism.
Invoking the Name of Jesus in Ownership
As noted above, the prophecy in Amos 9:11-12 is that there will come a time when “…all the heathen (non-Jewish people who are not a part of the covenant) [will be], …called by my name, saith the LORD
that doeth this.” Ironically, the early Jewish Christian church had no desire to preach to Gentiles. A study of Acts shows how God literally had to force Peter’s hand to get him to go to the Gentile Cornelius. It was only because the Lord baptized Cornelius and his household with the Holy Ghost that Peter felt compelled to baptize them, and “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:48). Even so, when he returned to Jerusalem, the church there insisted on knowing why it was that he violated convention by going to the Gentiles, particularly why he baptized the household of Cornelius. He defended himself with what one might consider a rather weak statement: “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” (verse 17).
In Acts 15, James was correct when he said that it was God (not merely Peter) who visited the Gentiles “…to take out a people for his name.” (Acts 15:15). He then quoted from the Septuagint translation of the Amos passage in order to explain this: “That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” (verse 17). F. F. Bruce understands the text to mean, “‘all the Gentiles over whom my name has been invoked’ (i.e. in baptism).” 56 Here it is clear that the invoking of the name of Jesus had the same claim (and more) that invoking the name of Yahweh did in the Old Testament. When the name of Yahweh was invoked, it showed His ownership over the one on whom it was invoked. The name of Yahweh was invoked upon a nation; the name of Jesus could be invoked on anyone in the world!
The Name of Jesus and Redemption
According to Philo, the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus means “the salvation of the Lord”. 57 Before Jesus was ever born, it was proclaimed more than once that He would be a Savior-a Redeemer. The redemptive act of Yahweh was that He redeemed slaves, forgave them their sins, and made them a nation. The name Yahweh was the covenant name by which they were saved. The redemptive act of Jesus is encapsulated in His death, burial, and resurrection. In the Old Testament, Yahweh saved a nation. In the New Testament, Jesus died to save the world.
People often think of baptism as a kind of “extra” when it comes to conversion. But the Scriptures describing baptism as a saving act are many, and we have many good books written on this subject. 58 Because much has been written about this, I will only make a couple of points related to this truth. Some time ago, the writer of this paper was taking a class in seminary on the Epistle of Galatians. The teacher, who was from a Methodist background, was using a particular verse in Galatians to influence us to her position as to how sanctification was a gradual event and was not given suddenly at salvation. Rather than argue with the teacher about her understanding of that particular verse, I asked the teacher how she interpreted I Corinthians 6:11. In I Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul lists sinners of the worst kind. Then, in I Corinthians 6:11, he states, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” After I read this verse, I pointed out that the British scholar Geoffrey Wainwright (who I knew the teacher of the class respected) said that because these verb were all in the aorist tense, it meant that this washing, sanctification, and redemption all took place at one specific point in time. This was a single act of conversion that occurred, not over a long period, but suddenly. 59 I asked her, That is what Geoffrey Wainwright suggests, but what do you make of this verse?
She looked at the verse in Greek for a number of seconds and finally commented on it. She did not know my background at the time and thought I was arguing for some kind of confession to receive Christ. She said, “All right then, David. You can say that if you want to, but this verse has nothing to do with accepting Jesus as your personal Savior. I would say that if the verse means anything, it means that sanctification takes place at baptism, and I would also say that receiving the Spirit is closely tied in with it.” I turned to look at another student, a fellow UPC Bible school instructor, who was also taking the class with me. 60 He was as surprised as I was by her interpretation of the verse. I said to the teacher, “I agree with that. Sounds good to me.”
The reason she took the verse to mean baptism was because it said they were washed, justified, and sanctified “in the name of the Lord Jesus”. Consider this: when washing took place, justification and sanctification took place as well. This happens when the name of the LORD–Jesus, is invoked.
Some have suggested that all one has to do is to “call upon the name of the Lord” in order to be saved. Is not this what Peter said in Acts chapter 2, verse 21, quoting Joel? While one must not diminish the importance of calling on the name of the Lord, this writer is convinced that the for the New Testament church, this “calling upon the Lord” was something they understood in a certain context. Indeed, it is the same context where the name of the Lord is invoked. What did Ananias say to Paul on the way to baptizing him? “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). 61 Paul was “calling upon the name of the Lord” at the same time that the name of Jesus was being invoked upon him. This hearkens back to the Hebrew idiom where the name of the Lord is invoked. Again, in Romans 10, Paul writes that “…whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (verse 13). He was using the verse in a context that was well-known to the church. True, the specific verse had reference to Joel; but more importantly, it had a “life setting” 62 in the early church. Just as a preacher might quote a song, a hymn, or a common saying where the congregation would understand the original context, so Paul seems to have been using this confessional formula drawn from a context that the Roman church understood. Geoffrey Wainwright suggests that Paul is drawing from a baptismal setting, where the name of Lord is invoked. 63 For too long, people have attempted to relegate baptism to a secondary role in conversion. For Paul, this cannot be. Baptism is central for Paul. Paul had no concept of an unbaptized Christian. He wrote the Galatians, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (3:27)
The Presence of God and the Name of Jesus
Just as Yahweh, the I AM, was present where His name was invoked, so the Lord is present when the name of Jesus is invoked. Certainly, “…God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” and “…in him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily.” 64 So that there would be no mistake in understanding the meaning of Jesus, after Matthew recorded what the angel said the baby’s name should be, he went on to quote Isaiah 7:14 applying it to Jesus: “…and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” 65 Where Jesus is invoked, God is with us!
For many Jewish people, salvation was in the temple, for that is where Yahweh had placed His name, and that is where the glory [presence of God] dwelt. 66 According to the rabbis, the presence of God, His shekinah, his glory, resided in the temple. 67 This is exactly what John challenged in the first chapter of His Gospel. He writes, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14). The word for “dwelt” is derived from the Greek verb for “to tent” or “to tabernacle”. John was making a direct allusion, challenging the understanding of Jewish theology. In Exodus 25:9, God told Moses, “And have them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.” The Jews believed the presence of God was first in the tabernacle, but now in the temple. But John claimed that the divine presence of God was “tabernacle” only in Jesus 68 It was not in the temple–the “glory” (or presence of God) could only be found in Jesus. Further, since the name of Jesus was now invoked on the church, the church was God’s new covenant community where God’s presence dwelt, for His name was upon them. It is hard to imagine the response of a non-believing Jew to this kind of in-your-face challenge. Indeed, this same claim was made by Peter in Acts 4:12 when he challenged the Sanhedrin concerning the name of Jesus: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). We’ve got it–he was saying–you don’t.
Jesus promised that where two or three were gathered together in His name, He would be in the midst. Perhaps the greatest revelation that third and fourth generation Apostolics can receive (we already know that we shouldn’t be baptized in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) is the revelation that we are absolutely in the presence of God at the invocation of the name of Jesus. It is clearly one thing to know this intellectually, and quite another to experience and expect it. The Sanhedrin asked Peter, “By what power or by what name have you done this [healed the lame man]?” It is clear from the question that the “name” is equivalent to the power in that name. The Book of Acts is evidence of this miraculous power. Healings, miracles, conversions were all done in the name and by the power of Jesus. So central is this that Paul wrote to the Colossians, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” (Colossians 3:17).
How the Church Forgot the Name
To the church was given the privilege of invoking the name of Jesus in baptism; the early church practiced this, experiencing the ownership, forgiveness, and presence of the Lord that comes with the invocation of the name. However, by the time of Justin Martyr, the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were regularly being introduced as a substitute baptismal formula. By the time the second century was winding to a close, baptism had accrued a lot more tradition–ritual that took place without real understanding. Michel Meslin points out,
“…the baptismal ritual was quickly enriched [sic] through such additions as interrogations (like those preceding Jewish baptism), a triple renunciation of the devil (recalling Jesus’ triple renunciation during his temptations), a triple immersion (representing the Trinity), the anointing of the neophyte with the holy chrism, and laying on of hands by the bishop or priest (Tertullian, Against Praxeas 26; On Baptism; Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition).” 69
By the time the tradition was fully developed, people were not fully immersed; they were sprinkled. It was not repentant people who were baptized; rather, it was infants. The name of Jesus was not invoked. No name was invoked, only titles. The proper understanding of what these titles meant was lost as the trinitarian doctrine incorporated more and more Neoplatonic thought. The church which deemed itself the owner of the name of the Lord, and the protector of things holy, shrouded the nature of God in mystery–the name of Jesus was no longer pronounced. The irony, of course, is that what happened in the Intertestamental period was repeated in the church age. The invocation of the Name was lost. 70
The name of the LORD was invoked upon people from the very beginning of Genesis. The invocation of this name identifies the covenant between the LORD and His people. It shows His ownership, His redemptive power, and His presence. In the Old Testament, it was invoked upon Moses, the tabernacle, the temple, Jerusalem, etc. This showed that Israel was God’s special purchased possession, His peculiar treasure. They were the people who were called by His Name.
The invoking of the name becomes a vital issue in the New Testament also. Just as the name Yahweh saves in the Old Testament, Jesus (Jehovah-Savior) saves in the New Testament. “Neither is their salvation in any other, for their is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”(Acts 4:12). When we invoke the name of Jesus, the Lord is announcing His ownership on us; we are redeemed by appropriating the sacrifice of Calvary. The basis for baptizing in Jesus’ name is the good news–the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This was no longer for Israel alone. The Lord has visited the Gentiles; the invocation of His name upon non-Jewish peoples fulfills the prophecy of Amos: “That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.” (Amos 9:12). We are now owned–redeemed by the Name which guarantees His presence, for wherever two or three are gathered together in His name, He has promised to be there. Now, we are the people of the Name.
Tragically, when Israel stopped speaking the name of the LORD, they forgot the importance His name represented in their covenant with Him. Whatever the reason for their action, the Name that was to be a reminder that He saved them became far away and removed. As Pentecostals, let us remember Israel. “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” (I Corinthians 10:1 1). We could easily get sidetracked, forgetting the significance of His Name. Our generation of Apostolics are in danger of not understanding the importance of what has been given to us. The redemptive power is not in how we say the name, but the power lies in the Name itself. The name of Jesus and the power that is in Jesus’ name is not a “conjuring formula” that gives us an extra charge of anointing or some kind of exclusive
rights. We have done nothing to merit the revelation of the Name.
The Lord is doing “new things”, and we need to rise to the hour in which we live. God is looking for Aquila and Priscilla to teach others the way more perfectly. The name of Jesus is His ownership on us as a church and on each individual. We need revelation that God wants to do a work. He delights to pour out His Spirit just as He has promised. God is looking to save, heal, and work miracles. Don’t believe that we use the Name in order to motivate God to work. When we use His Name, we are the responders to what the Lord wants to do. You see, we don’t own the name–the name owns us!
1 I See Vinson Synan, The Holiness Pentecostal Tradition, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997), 271 -274. A quick look at the charts shows that the growth has been unprecedented; growth of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has absolutely altered the face of Christendom in the twentieth century. For 1995, fully 24% of all Christians were labeled “Pentecostal/Charismatic”-an estimated 463,741,000. Based on the projected curve of growth rate, it is easy to project that this percentage is increasing every single year.
2 I have personally heard a number of Apostolic ministers predict that this would happen; over twenty years ago I heard J. T. Pugh make some bold predictions using numerological analogies from the Book of
Acts. While I did not agree with his numerology, his optimism that the church world would embrace baptism in Jesus’ name and other aspects of our message was not unfounded.
3 Synan, 273. Here he cites C. Peter Wagner, perhaps the leading expert on church growth. “Third Wave” adherents are not an organized movement. This is a label he attaches to an ever increasing segment of
main-line denominations who want Pentecostal style worship and the gifts of the Spirit without any sort of label such as “Charismatic” or “Pentecostal”. They do not consider tongues an evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; indeed, the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a label they do not even acknowledge.
4 I do not suggest that there was no one who was baptized in Jesus’ name in church history. However, it is clear that this present twentieth century revival had specific historical roots in this century likewise, the revelation of Jesus’ name baptism can be traced to a specific local and time in this century”. My concern then in this paper is to talk about the twentieth century revival of the Apostolic truth in the context of the world-wide revival that it is generating.
5 Aquila and Priscilla “took [Apollos] unto them, and expounded unto him the way more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). He knew about baptism in anticipation of the one who was to come. They explained to him Who that was; likewise we may have opportunity to do the same. Just as Mordecai told Esther not keep silent– “…who knoweth whether thou art come into the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14), so it would only take one well-placed conversation to effect the entire church world.
6 See Mark 9:38-41. Because of the attitude of the disciples here and Jesus’ allusion to someone doing only ancillary service on behalf a believer (verse 41), it may be that the person the disciples forbade to speak in Jesus’ name only knew part of the truth. However, the text is not really clear on this point. If the person was in fact ignorant, I do not think that Jesus was justifying the position of ignorance, nor should we. Rather, the primary concern of Jesus here was to address the faulty attitude of His disciples.
7 The same doctrine is being referred to when David Bernard writes against the Assemblies of Yahweh and when Daniel Seagraves writes against “Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly”. See Daniel L. Seagraves, The Messiah’s Name: Jesus, Not Yahshua, (Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing, 1996). See also David K. Bernard, “Yahweh, Yashua or Jesus?”, in the October, 1988, Pentecostal Herald More information can be obtained from the organization itself by writing Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly, PO. Box 50, Kingdom City, MO, 65262, or on the world-wide web (www.YNCA.com).
8 Originally, there were only consonants in the Hebrew language. People simply remembered the vowel sounds when they read the consonants (similar to someone reading consonants from a license plate to decipher what a “voweless” word might be). The vowel points, the little dots and dashes (primarily under the letter which precedes the vowel sound), were added only in the 9th and I 0th century AD by the Massoretes. Unfortunately, the Massoretes did not know what vowel sounds should be used in Yahweh, for no one knew how to pronounce the name of God at that time. The Massoretes supplied the vowel points from the more generic word for God, Adonai, but no one really knows how the name should be pronounced for certain. The covenant name of God, (YHWH), is sometimes labeled the “Tetragsammaton”; this term refers to the fact that there are four letters in the Name of God. The third letter, the “w”, is sometimes rendered with a “w” sound and sometimes with “v” sound; this depends on whether it is done with a Sephardic or Ashkenazik pronunciation.
9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 58. JFB’s explanation of the Hebrew being interrogative is certainly allowable in the Hebrew, but is not as preferable:
I think the interpretation that this is a deeper revelation of the name of Yahweh more adequately explains the text.
10 ssee Bright. A History of Israel. 1959. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983), 125- 126, note 43. Although he lists objections to a number of the citations where some suggest a theophoric element, a check of the sources listed by those mentioned and other members of the “American School” offers convincing evidence for the early use of Yahweh. On this, see particularly William F. Albright’s Yahweh and the Cod’s of Canaan. (London: Athlone Press, 1968), 46-149, F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. (Boston: Harvard Univ. Pr., Doubleday, 1968), Ch. 1; cf. 44ff., 60 If. On the third Millennium BC. Ebla material, see G. Pettinato, Biblical Archaeologist, XXXIX, 1976, 44-52.
11. here the first part of the name, the yi, is the shortened form of Yahweh. again, it is the first part of the name, the ya, which contains the shortened form of Yahweh, the theophoric element.
13 See David Noel Freedman’s Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy, (Winona Lake: IN, 1980), 119.
14 The author is well aware of the discussion of whether the verse should be translated positively, taking as “began” [as a third-person masculine singular) or negatively, taking the Hebrew here as “profane”. The New American Standard Bible, which retains the idea that “…men began to call on the name of the Lord,” is preferable to some of the Rabbinic traditions understand the Hebrew “…men profanely called on the name of Lord.” In either case, there is a technical sense of the meaning: either a covenantal relationship with the Lord or an purposely idolatrous worship meant to debase the name of the Lord was entered into by the people. For a good explanation of why one should prefer “began” to “profane”, see David A. Hubbard et. al., eds., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. I, (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 115- 116.
15 See Claus Westerman, Genesis 1-11, A Commentary, trans. John H. Scullion, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 341. (az�translated “At that time”) here then seems to mean that from the
earliest times men were in this special covenant with the Lord where
the name of the Lord was invoked. It was not just that they invoked it
in worship; they themselves were called by His name.
16 See D. Preman Niles, “The Theological Importance of the Name Yahweh.” Diss. Princeton Theological Seminary, 67f. One example of this is found in Psalms 116:4.
17 Ibid. For example, see Psalms 116: 12f.
18 Ibid. See its use relative to the worship of Abraham in Genesis 12:8.
19 Ibid. See Exodus 34:5; cf. Exodus 33:19.
20 Since the Intertestamental period even up until today Jewish people will not pronounce Yahweh. They replace it with the more generic word for Lord-Adonai They would read the phrase: liqroh beshem Adonai
21 The Hebrew expression is and is not found in the construction is not in other extant Semitic literature. See Niles, 67f. The larger part of Niles’ dissertation suggests that the meaning of cannot be
determined through an etiological study or a “magical” use of names represented in the worship of other religions. He contends it must be studied in the context of Israelite worship. Hence, the understanding of this phrase is a vital part of his research and forms what is probably the major argument of the dissertation.
22 See Gerhard Kittel, “Doxa”, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (hereafter TDNT) Vol. 2, Geoffrey W. Bromily, ea., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Pub. Co., 241.
24 Kurt Galling, “Die Ausrufung des Namens ais Rechtsakt in Israel,” Theologische Literaturezeitung, 81, 1956, cols. 65-70.
25 The Lord often accommodated Himself to a human way of speaking and interacting with people. George Mendenhall has shown that in a number of elements in the Exodus account (as well as in other portions of the Pentateuch), used a “legal genre” that is known to us through the Hittite Suzerainty treaties. There are, of course, some differences. In those treaties, they petition every god that is known to them that they will keep the covenant. Yahweh knows no other gods and has no need to swear by them. Also, in the Hittite treaties, when the king invokes his name at the beginning of the treaty, he includes an entire paragraph of his accomplishments, titles and reasons why the people should follow him. The LORD needs none of this; He simply says, “I am the LORD thy God”! Nor does the LORD need a long list of accomplishments to recommend Himself. He simply says, “…which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” For more information, see George Mendenhall, “Covenant”, David Noel Freedman, ea., Anchor Bible Dictionary (Hereafter ABD), Vol. I, (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
26 The Hebrew here is. A quick check of several lexicons yielded the same result. This is primarily spoken of property; Brown et al., in Brown-Driver-Briggs-Cesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), is typical, where the word is defined as “possession, property”, 688. The lexicon goes on to say, “valued property, peculiar treasure, which Yahweh has chosen to take unto himself; always used of the people of Israel.”
27 Niles, 34. Note that the Hebrew is exactly the same construction as Jeremiah 7:10 where the name of Yahweh is verbally pronounced over the temple.
28 See John Wick Bowman, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 24, The Letter to the Hebrews Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1962), 62.
29 See George Arthur Buttrick, et. al., eds., The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1, (New York: Abingdon Pr., 1952), 1075.
3O Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1961), 43.
31 For example, see James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edition with supplement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton, Univ. Pr., 1969, 12-14, on the secret name of Re.
32 See Hans Bittenhard, “Onama” in TDNT, Vol. 5, 243f.
33 Ibid, p. 255.
34 Exodus 3:14 is one of the most significant of biblical texts: “And God said unto Moses, l AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, l AM hath sent me unto you.” In
Hebrew, it reads:
35 While the verb does not have all the same basic letters or radicals as there is a strong correlation in the Hebrew, where letters often change based on the kind of verb involved, number and persons that are represented. What some have noted, is that there is in the “I AM”, a refusal to be like other gods-Yahweh refuses to be put into the same category.
36 John 1. Durham, ” Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3, (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 39.
38 Niles, p. 35.
39 For instance, in the Armana letters, several references are given where the king has set his name over Jerusalem. See Pritchard, 488f. The argument by Roland de Vaux is made in “Le Lieu que Yahve a choisi pour y etablir son nom,: Das Ferne and nahe Wort, Leonard Rost Festchrift, ed. Fritz Maass, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 105, Berlin: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1967, 221 -228.
40 Two formulas are consistently used. The first formula reads as follows: “…the place where Yahweh has to establish his name,”used in Deuteronomy, 12:11; 14:23; 16:2,6, 11;26:2. The second formula reads: “…the place which he has chosen to place his name,” recorded in Deuteronomy 12:5, 21; 14:24. The most prominent name associated with a `’Theology of Name” where the name of Yahweh is associated with the temple in Jerusalem is Gerhard von Rad. See particularly his Studies in Deuteronomy, trans. David Stalker, (London: SCM Press, 1953). Others that accept this “name theology” include P. van Imschoot, E. Jacob, and W. Eichrodt. See also Bittenhard, p. 257.
41 Oskar Grether, Name and Wort Cottes im Alten Testament. Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1934.
42 Ibid., p. 32.
43 Hans Bittenhard, 265, who cites Philo from Vit. Moses (The Life of Moses) 11, 132.
44 When the name of Lord ceased to be pronounced is not entirely certain, but an analysis of pseudepigraphal writings in the Intertestamental Period shows that by the third century before Christ there was prejudice against it. See Bright, 447. On the passing down of the pronunciation of the name of the Lord from father to son in the priesthood, see Bittenhard, 266.
45 Bittenhard, 269
46 In this verse Jesus is called Savior Messiah and Lord
47 See Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971, p. XIV. Any Hebrew Biblical Lexicon will offer the Hebrew for Joshua. See Robert Young, Young ‘s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, p. 551.
48 The “Fundamentals of Faith” of Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly, in its article on baptism reads, “There is one baptism into the one true saving name of Yahshua….” “Fundamental’s of Faith”, www. YNCA.com.
49 The scholarly shift is certainly no consensus yet. It is based upon the proximity of Jesus’ hometown to the Hellenized Decapolis and other Hellenized cities. Since the ground-breaking work by Hengel and others in the last decade, it is more prominent. It is the position, for instance, of Marcus Borg, Burton Mack, and others.
50 See, for instance, Matthew 26:73, where Peter’s peculiar accent was recognized.
51 A study of the Maccabean time shows that Hellenization was part and parcel of Judean culture as well. It was not considered improper to use the Greek form of a person’s name. On the definitive study of Hellenism in Judea, see Martin Hengel’s two volume Judaism and Hellenism, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).
52 Samuel Macauley Jackson et al, eds., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 436.
53 See Lars Hartmann, “Baptism” ABD, 583-594. On Hartmann’s thesis that baptism is directly linked with Christology, see his “Baptism ‘Into the Name of Jesus’ and Early Christology,” Studia Theologica, 28 1974.
54 Hartmann, “Baptism”, 586-7.
55 Hartmann, 587. He writes, “It seems that when somebody presented an offering in the temple, he declared what kind of offering he was giving: cf., e.g., b Pesach 60a: “Behold I slaughter the Pesach into its name,” i.e., “this is a passover sacrifice.: The parallel would then intimate that the purpose or the fundamental reference of baptism was mentioned at the rite and that this was done in such a way that Jesus was mentioned.”
56 F. F. Bruce, The International Commentary on the New Testament, The Book of Acts, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 294.
57 in The Works of Philo. Trans. C. D. Yonge. (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), see On the Change of Names (De Mutatione Nominum) paragraph 121, p. 351.
58 For instance, I Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16; Titus 3:5; etc. while some argue whether “for the remission of sins” should be understood as “because of the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38, it seems clear from Acts 22: 16 that it involves more: Ananias clearly states to Paul, “…arise and be baptized, and wash away they sin, calling on the name of the Lord.” See the many fine publications available from Word Aflame publishers on this subject.
59 Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology, The Praise of Cod in Worship, Doctrine and Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), Wainwright writes, “St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: ‘You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God’ (I Corinthians 6:11). The reference to baptism seems unmistakable: apart from the mention of washing we note also that the verbs are in the aorist tense (for a single event in the past), that baptism was performed ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ (clear in Acts), and that the Holy Spirit was closely associated with baptism (e.g. Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5; John 3:5).” 410. With regard to the subject of sanctification, l do believe that there are different ways in which the word is used. We have “positional sanctification” at the new birth. We have a kind of “progressive sanctification” as we draw closer to the Lord in our walk with Him.
60 James Littles; currently the Academic Dean at Gateway College in St. Louis.
62 While I admit that it is the habit of liberal scholars to look for the Sitz im Leben behind every text, we must acknowledge certain kerygmatic statements, confessions and Christological hymns that are quoted in Pauline epistles. This is not stretching the text or taking it out of context.
63 Wainwright writes, “Formgeschichte and Redakiongeschechte have also detected other types of liturgical material embedded in the New Testament and shown how it was used by the authors of our documents. The most basic form is doubtless the brief acclamatory confessions which the writers introduce by the word homologein: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord…. (Romans 10:9f)…the context in Romans might suggest a baptismal locus for the confession Kurios Jesous….” pp. 156- 157.
64. II Corinthians 5:19 and Colossians 2:9.
65 In Hebrew, it says literally to call his name “with us (is) God”. It is written in the Hebrew as two words
66 0n the “doxa” representing the presence of God and its association with the name of God, see Bittenhard, 272. On the Jewish belief that the name of God was resident, see earlier references in the paper, as well as Martin Rose, “Names of God in the Old Testament,” ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman, Vol. 4, 1003. He writes, “The presence of the divine name at the cult site [the Jerusalem temple] serves to emphasize the legitmacy of appeal…(and) represents the only legitimate form which corresponds to the will of God, Yahweh having deposited his name there.” See also Grether above in footnote 41.
67 On this, see especially Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, (Garden City, NJ: 1966). Brown writes, “There is another aspect of the divine presence suggested in [John chapter one] verse 14b. The radicals sin which underlie the Greek verb ‘to tent’ resemble the Hebrew root which also means ‘to dwell’ and from which the noun shekinah is derived. In rabbinic theology shekinah was a technical term for God’s presence dwelling with His people. For instance, in Exodus 25: 8 where God says, ‘Let them name me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them,’ the Targum or Aramaic translation has, ‘I shall cause my shekinah to reside among them.”‘ 33. See also 34-35 as well.
68 Kai [from the verb which means to “take up residence] [the glory, shekinah, where Yahweh manifests Himself. The verb above can have the nuance of temporary residence c (so Bauer Arndt & Gingrich); Friberg’s Greek Lexicon offers: live, dwell (temporarily); lit. live or camp in a tent; fig. in the NT dwell, take up one’s residence, come to reside (among) (JN 1.14). I think here the allusion is specifically given as a contrast to what the Jews thought concerning where the doxa was manifest. See the material from Brown from the footnote above. The presence of God was not in the temple. It can be found in Jesus
69 Michel Meslin, “Baptism”, Mircea Eliade, ea., The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 2, (New York: Macmillon Publishing Company), 62.
70 This comparison primarily comes from conversation with my friend, David Huston, who expresses it much better; he should be publishing his work on this comparison in the future.
The Above Material Was Published By David Norris. This Material Is Copyrighted And May Be Used For Study & Research Purposes Only.