Tag: Name of Jesus

November 18: John 15:16 (5)

John 15:16, concluded

“(It was) not you (who) gathered me out, but I (who) gathered you out; and I set you (so) that you should lead (yourself) under and should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain, (so) that, whatever you would ask (of) the Father in my name, He should give to you.”

“(so) that, whatever you would ask (of) the Father in my name, He should give to you.”
i%na o% ti a*n ai)th/shte to\n pate/ra e)n tw=| o)no/mati/ mou dw=| u(mi=n

The conclusion of verse 16 echoes the promise from v. 7b—namely, that the Father will give the disciples whatever they ask for in Jesus’ name (“in my name”). The promise in v. 7 was conditional, governed by the particle e)a/n:  “if you should remain in me, and my words remain in you…”. The condition of remaining (vb me/nw) in Jesus, and in his word[s] (cf. 8:31), corresponds here to the expression “in Jesus’ name”. It reflects the character and conduct of the true disciple (or true believer); on the verb me/nw (“remain”) in this regard, cf. the discussion in the previous note (and in notes prior).

A similar promise, regarding the disciples’ prayers being answered, occurs at two other points in the Last Discourse (14:13-14; 16:23-24, 26). In both instances, prayer is described as making a request or “asking” (vb ai)te/w) God (the Father); and the same qualifying/conditional expression, “in my name”, is used as well.

The context of v. 16 suggests that the disciples’ requests will be tied to their mission. Indeed, there is no real indication that these prayer-references in the Last Discourse involve request for personal needs; on the contrary, the entire thrust of Jesus’ instruction would seem to assume that the disciples will be praying for others, more than for themselves. The duty to show love, as defined (13:34-35; 15:12-13), virtually requires that prayer be focused on the needs and well-being of others.

This is equally true with regard to the duty of guarding Jesus’ words (“remain in my word”). Since, in the Gospel of John, the message of Jesus’ words, centering on his identity as the Son of God, has life-giving power (6:63, 68), the words thus give (eternal) life to those who receive them. The disciples/believers who “guard” this word (lo/go$) are faithful to the witness of Jesus, and share in his mission. We may assume that any request by a true believer, made “in Jesus’ name”, will have this mission and duty in mind.

The prayer-references in the Last Discourse are also connected contextually with the Paraclete-sayings (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7b-15)—dealing with the promise of the coming of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit also occurs “in Jesus’ name” (14:26), and involves a request made to the Father (14:16). In this regard, one is reminded of the collection of teachings on prayer by Jesus in Luke 11:1-13, which climaxes with a promise that the Father will give the Holy Spirit (v. 13), suggesting that the coming of the Spirit represents the very goal and purpose of prayer. In the Johannine Paraclete-sayings, the role of the Spirit is very much centered on the disciples/believers’ mission—specifically, on witnessing to the truth of who Jesus is (15:26-27; 16:8ff, 13-15).

Notes on Prayer: 1 Kings 8 and the Role of the Temple (cont.)

In this conclusion to our series of notes on the Prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8, we are examining the two major themes of this Prayer (and its surrounding narrative): (1) the centralization of worship, and (2) the name of YHWH. Last week, the theme of centralization of worship was discussed; today, we will be looking at the second theme.

The name of YHWH

Throughout the Prayer, there is a strong emphasis on the Temple as the place where God’s name resides—vv. 16-20, 33, 35, 42-44, 48. In this regard, 1 Kings 8 is simply continuing an important theme and motif of the Deuteronomic history. Beginning with the book of Deuteronomy, the idea of a place for God’s name is used to designate the city of Jerusalem (and the specific site of the Temple), and, by extension, the territory/kingdom of Judah as a whole. The presence of His name indicates that YHWH has chosen Judah and Jerusalem for His dwelling-place among His people. For the key references, see Deut 12:11, 21; 14:23-24; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; 2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kings 9:3, 7; 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:4, 7; 23:27.

There are three principal aspects to this emphasis on YHWH’s name that need to be noted:

    1. In ancient Near Eastern thought, a person’s name stands for the person, representing and embodying his/her essential nature and character. I have discussed this in the earlier series “And You Shall Call His Name…”. There was thus a quasi-magical quality to a person’s name; in dealing with a person’s name, one could effect or relate to the actual person. This was especially true in a religious context, when dealing with the name of God.
    2. Along these same lines, the name represents the presence of the person, even when he/she cannot actually be present physically. This is equally true in the case of God. As the Prayer points out repeatedly, though YHWH actually resides in heaven (vv. 27, 30, 32, 34-36, 39, 43, 45, 49), His name resides in the Temple sanctuary.
    3. The presence of a person’s name also serves as a mark of possession or ownership. So the symbolic presence of YHWH’s name is a mark that the Temple belongs to Him; and, not only the Temple, but the sign of possession radiates outward to include the entire city of Jerusalem, the territory of Judah, and indeed the whole Kingdom of Israel. This aspect of the Temple is a sign that the people of Israel belong to YHWH, as His people. And, when the people pray in the direction of the Temple, where His name resides, they are essentially recognizing and acknowledging this fact.

When we turn to the New Testament, and the beliefs and practices of early Christians, we can see that this emphasis on the name of God has been developed and adapted in a number of interesting ways. I would point out three, in particular, that I wish to discuss briefly:

    1. Jesus as God’s chosen representative, who comes and acts “in His name”
    2. The Johannine theme that Jesus, as the Son of God, makes God the Father known to believers in the world—this can specifically be understood in terms of making known the Father’s name.
    3. The importance of the Jesus’ name—specifically for prayer, but also for other aspects of the religious life and experience of believers.

1. The principal Gospel passage(s) that expresses the idea of Jesus as a Divine representative who comes “in YHWH’s name”, involves the tradition of his entry into Jerusalem. This episode occurs in all four Gospels—both in the Synoptics (Mk 11:1-10; Matt 21:1-9; Lk 19:29-38) and the Gospel of John (12:12-15)—and essentially marks the beginning of Jesus’ Passion. In the overall Synoptic narrative, the ‘triumphal entry’ stands at the beginning of a period of teaching and ministry in Jerusalem (Mk 11:12-13:37 par) that precedes the Passion narrative.

In all four accounts of the Entry, the crowd that receives Jesus is recorded as quoting Psalm 118:26:

“Blessed (is) the (one) coming in (the) name of YHWH!”

Though there are slight variations in how this declaration is presented in each account (Mk 11:9; Matt 21:9; Lk 19:38; Jn 12:13), it is clearly part of the underlying historical tradition.

I have discussed this tradition in earlier notes and articles, and will be doing so again in Part 3 of my study on the Sukkot festival. What is most significant is how the quotation of Psalm 118:26 relates to the Messianic identity of Jesus. There were a number of Messianic figure-types current in Jewish thought and expectation, and early Christians ultimately identified Jesus with all of them. I discuss this subject at length, including treatments of the different figure-types, in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. Regardless of which Messianic figure-type Jesus was seen as fulfilling, the principal idea is that he was God’s chosen (“anointed”) representative, whose presence and activity on earth marked the end of the current Age and the beginning of the New Age for God’s people.

In the Entry episode, it is clearly the royal/Davidic Messiah that is in view (cf. Parts 6–8 of “Yeshua the Anointed”). In this respect, the use of Psalm 118 is especially appropriate. Even though this Psalm, as one of the Hallel Psalms (113-118), came to be associated with great pilgrimage festivals (esp. Passover and Sukkot), and were sung on those occasions, it is probable that the original context of the Psalm involved the victorious return of the Israelite/Judean king to Jerusalem (after battle). For more on this, cf. my article in the series “The Old Testament and the Gospel Tradition”. Psalm 118:26 is also cited by Jesus himself, in relation to his Messianic identity, in Matt 23:39 / Lk 13:35 (“Q” tradition).

2. The Gospel of John develops the Messianic significance of coming/acting in God’s name in a distinctive way, informed by the Johannine theology (and theological idiom). In the Gospel of John, Jesus is not only the Messiah, he is also the eternal (and pre-existent) Son of God. He was sent to earth from heaven by God the Father, being given a mission from the Father to complete. This mission included speaking and acting in the Father’s name—speaking the Father’s words and doing His works (such as working healing miracles and raising the dead). Like a dutiful son, Jesus follows his father’s example, doing what he sees the Father doing, and saying what he hears the Father saying. Thus Jesus (the Son) truly represents the Father, manifesting His presence and power to people on earth.

Two specific statements by Jesus may be pointed out:

“I have come in the name of my Father…” (5:43)
“the works that I do in my Father’s name, they give witness about me” (10:25)

The Son’s mission and work on earth culminates in his sacrificial death (19:30); all of this is done in the Father’s name, and the death and resurrection (i.e., the exaltation) of the Son serves to give honor/glory to the Father (12:28, note the context of v. 13). This theme finds its fullest development in the great Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17, where Jesus specifically refers to his work in manifesting the Father’s name to believers (vv. 6, 26; cf. also 11-12):

“I made your name shine forth to the (one)s whom you gave to me out of the world” (v. 6)
“and I made known to them your name…” (v. 26)

3. Finally, it is important to consider how, for Christians, the Son’s name came to replace the Father’s name. This is particularly notable in relation to the tradition of prayer by early Christians. Even though believers were still directed to pray so as to give honor to the Father’s name (Matt 6:9 par), at an early point there came to be a strong tradition of praying (to the Father) in Jesus’ name. There is surprisingly little direct evidence for this in the New Testament itself; we see it most clearly in the Gospel of John (in the Last Discourse, 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26), where the tradition is rooted in the Johannine theology and Christology (i.e., the Son’s abiding relationship to the Father). Of particular importance is the idea that the Father will send the Spirit to the disciples/believers in Jesus’ name (14:26); on the sending of the Spirit as the goal (and result) of prayer, cp. the context of Luke 11:13.

Another Johannine theme which is more firmly rooted in the wider Gospel tradition is the idea of the disciples (believers) continuing the (Messianic) mission of Jesus on earth. This goes back to the early tradition of the choosing of the Twelve and their initial mission (Mark 3:13-19; 6:7-13 pars). The disciples were specifically chosen by Jesus, and were allowed to share the same authority (and ‘anointing’) that he possessed, so that they would proclaim the good news (Gospel) and perform healing miracles, etc., in his name. The particular association with Jesus’ name is seen more clearly in the Gospel of Luke (10:17; 24:47; cp. 9:49; 21:9 pars), after which it occurs frequently throughout the book of Acts (3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 17-18, 30; 5:28, 40-41, etc).

Part of this ministry involved the baptizing of new believers, as a ritual symbol of their belonging to Jesus, and of their participating in the life-giving power of his death and resurrection. One trusts in Jesus’ name (i.e., his identity as the Messiah and Son of God; cf. Acts 2:21, 38; 4:12; John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18), and so is baptized in that name (Matt 28:19; Acts 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16, etc). Everywhere that believers work or gather together, they are representatives of Jesus, and so act in his name (Matt 18:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 5:4; Col 3:17, etc). The identity of belonging to Christ, conferred and realized through the baptism ritual, governs and informs all aspects of our life as believers.

October 30: John 15:7 (continued)

John 15:7, continued

As we examined in the previous note, there is a close connection between the motif of Jesus’ word (lo/go$ / r(h=ma) and the theme of the believer remaining in Jesus (and he in the believer). This is certainly expressed in v. 7a:

“If you should remain in me, and my utterances [r(h/mata] should remain in you…”

The same idiom—viz., of the word of Jesus (or of God the Father) remaining (or being) in (e)n) a person—is found in 5:38 and 8:37, as discussed in the previous note. The noun r(h=ma (lit. “utterance, something uttered”) is used here in v. 7, but r(h=ma and lo/go$ are largely synonymous, in this context, in the Gospel of John; r(h=ma always occurs in the plural (r(h/mata), being virtually identical in meaning with the plural lo/goi—both referring to specific things taught/said by the Son (Jesus) during the time of his earthly ministry.

If Jesus himself “remains” in the believer (vv. 4-5), then his words also will; similarly, based on the reciprocal nature of the abiding relationship, the believer will remain in Jesus, and also will remain in his word(s) (cf. 8:31). Indeed, the relationship of the believer to Jesus’ word(s) is a demonstration of the truth of his/her relationship to Jesus himself. This becomes an especially important point of emphasis for the author of 1 John. The true believer in Christ remains firmly rooted in Christ’s words (i.e., his teaching, proclamation, witness).

The content of the remainder of verse 7 is a bit surprising. Without any preparation, in the context of the Vine-illustration, there is an abrupt introduction of the theme of prayer (and the answer to prayer). If the believer remains in Jesus, and in Jesus’ words, then, as a result of this condition, the promise is:

“…you may request what ever you might wish, and it will come to be (so) for you.”
[In Ë66*, and a few other witnesses, the final word u(mi=n (“for you”) is absent/omitted.]

This echoes a promise stated elsewhere in the Last Discourse, most notably in 14:12-14 and 16:23-24, 26; it also occurs again at the close of the Vine-illustration (v. 16). In 14:12-14 and 16:23-24ff, the condition for prayer being answered is that the disciple (believer) should make the request of God in Jesus’ name (“in my name”). I have discussed these passages in earlier studies in the Monday Notes on Prayer feature. It is clear that the qualifying expression “in my name” relates principally to the believer’s trust in Jesus—specifically, believing that Jesus is the Son sent from heaven by God the Father (16:27), and recognizing the abiding relationship of unity between Father and Son (14:10ff). The latter is particularly important, since the relationship between Father and Son serves as the pattern for the same kind of relationship between the Son and believers. It is worth citing again Jesus’ words to his disciples in 14:10:

“Do you not trust that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The utterances [r(h/mata] that I say to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father remaining [me/nwn] in me, He does His works.”

Central to the Father’s work [e&rgon] that He does in the Son are the words that He speaks through him. The Son (Jesus) speaks the Father’s words, even as he does the Father’s works. Even if one cannot fully understand the nature (in a purely theological sense) of the abiding relationship they share, one can still trust that the works Jesus does, and the words he speaks, are evidence of this relationship—and of his identity as the Son of God:

“You must trust that I am in the Father, and the Father (is) in me; but, if (you can) not, (then) trust through [i.e. because of] the works (them)selves.” (v. 11)

The one who trusts, comes to share in the same relationship—viz., the believer is in the Son, and the Son is in the believer, just as the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son. As a result, the believer does the Son’s works, even as the Son does the Father’s works:

“Amen, amen, I say to you: the (one) trusting in me—that (one) also will do the (thing)s that I do…” (v. 12)

This sense of the believer’s abiding union with Jesus is at the heart of the Johannine understanding of the expression in Jesus’ name (“in my name”). When requests are made to God from the standpoint of this relationship, then the promise is that they will be answered.

Returning to the version of the promise in 15:7, there is a general parallel with the condition in 14:11:

    • “You must remain in me, and I in you”
      “If you remain in me, and my words remain in you…”
    • “You must trust that I am in the Father and the Father (is) in me…
      …trust in the works…”

It is clear that remaining in Jesus is parallel to (and synonymous with) trusting in him (as the Son of God). Similarly, remaining in his words is comparable to trusting in his works. Both the words and works of Jesus testify to his identity as the Son; indeed, there is a intimately close connection between the words (r(h/mata) and works (e&rga)—so as to be virtually equivalent in meaning (cf. the interchangeability of terms in 14:10).

Commentators can focus on the practical implications of these statements regarding the answer to prayer, and miss the theological (and Christological) implications, which are primary in the Gospel of John. The Son (Jesus) hears what the Father says, but the Father also hears what the Son requests. This aspect of the Father-Son relationship is not as prominent in the Gospel, but it does occur at several points—most notably, at the climactic moment of the Lazarus episode; just prior to the miracle, Jesus prays, addressing the Father:

“Yeshua lifted up his eyes above and said: ‘Father, I give thanks to you (for your) favor, (in) that you (have) heard me. Indeed, I had seen [i.e. known] that you always hear me, but I said (it) through [i.e. because of] the throng (of people) standing around (here), that they might trust that you did send me forth.'” (11:41-42)

The purpose of Jesus’ prayer is that people (i.e., those belonging to God) would come to trust in him—that he is the Son sent by God the Father. This is an important emphasis in the Gospel of John: the prayer that takes place “in Jesus’ name”, and which will surely be answered, relates to this mission of the Son. Believers continue the Son’s mission, and are to pray to the Father following the example of the Son. The theme expressed in 11:41-42, and which is central to the Johannine understanding of prayer, is developed in the great Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17. The prayer-references in the Last Discourse, including the reference here in the Vine illustration, anticipate the teaching and message of Jesus to his disciples (and to us as believers) in chap. 17.

 

 

Notes on Prayer: The Last Discourse (Summary)

Conclusion

As a way of bringing to close our study of prayer in the Last Discourse, it is necessary to address several key points.

First, the nature of the requests that believers will make to the Father—that is, the requests made “in Jesus’ name”, which are promised to be answered. These requests are referenced in a comprehensive and open ended manner—i.e., “whatever you would request”. The implication is that every prayer will be answered. This may be affirmed as correct, but only in the qualified sense required by the theological context of the Last Discourse.

In this regard, it may be noted that, in the Gospel of John, there is little or no practical teaching regarding prayer, such as we see at various points in the Synoptic Gospels (the Lord’s Prayer, etc). There is virtually nothing said regarding prayer for the practical necessities of daily life—food and drink, healing from illness, release from suffering, deliverance from persecution and temptation, etc. In fact, if anything, Jesus seems to draw a clear contrast between ordinary food and drink, etc, and the true spiritual nourishment that he provides for believers (4:7-14; 6:22-59; 7:37-39). Even in the Synoptic tradition, in the Lord’s Prayer, personal requests to meet daily needs are clearly subordinated to petitions related to God and His Kingdom.

The focus of the requests in the Last Discourse is defined by the thematic emphases that run through the Discourse-complex; of these, we may draw particular attention to:

    • Understanding of who Jesus is, and his relation to the Father
    • Jesus (the Son) as the one sent by God the Father, who makes known, through word and action, the truth of the Father; believers, in turn, are sent by Jesus to do the same—i.e., make known the truth of God the Father and Jesus the Son
    • The bond of love that unites believers to Father and Son; it is the same bond that unites believers with one another (including those chosen ones who have not yet come to faith)
    • The presence of the Spirit, uniting believers with Father and Son (and each other); through the ministry of believers, the Spirit is communicated to others, even as Jesus communicated it to the first disciples (20:22)

Second, the significance of prayer in Jesus’ name. As previously noted, this cannot be limited to a facile inclusion of the phrase “in Jesus’ name” as part of prayers (though early Christians did adopt this practice). Rather, the phrase is a fundamental mark of identity—that is, those who are true believers in Christ. From the standpoint of Johannine theology, this especially refers to the union of believers with Christ, and of his personal presence abiding in and among them. This emphasis is scarcely unique to the Johannine tradition; it was part of the wider early Christian tradition, including the baptism ritual. Even in the Synoptic Gospels, we find a saying such as in Matt 18:20, where the phrase (“in my name”) clearly indicates the personal (spiritual) presence of Jesus (cf. also Mk 9:37 par).

The Johannine writings go much further in developing the early tradition, especially here in the Last Discourse, where Jesus’ teaching to his disciples is expressed, overwhelmingly, in terms of the Johannine idiom (cp. the language and manner of expression in First John). In the Last Discourse, the abiding presence of Jesus (= “in Jesus’ name”) is defined primarily in terms of: (a) love, and (b) the Spirit. These are addressed in the final two points.

Third, prayer involves fulfillment of the ‘love command’ and is focused on the extension of the bond of love. When one keeps the ‘command(s)’ of Jesus (and of God the Father), the meaning, in the Johannine context, is two-fold. The ‘command’ (or duty) begins with a true trust in Jesus—that is, who he is as the Son of God—and continues (and is completed) as believers love each other, according to the example and teaching of Jesus himself. Jesus’ ultimate prayer (chap. 17) to God the Father was that believers would be united through the bond of love, and this is to be the overriding focus of our prayers, as believers, as well (cf. especially the closing verses 20-26). The mission and ministry of believers, preaching the Gospel and following the example of Jesus in our actions, is a basic sign of love—even to those elect/chosen ones of God who have yet to become believers.

Finally, prayer is centered in the presence and work of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit is central to the Last Discourse. There are key statements regarding the Spirit in all three of the main divisions of the Discourse-complex: in 14:16-17, 26, in 15:26, and in 16:7ff, 13-15. The Spirit is also called by the descriptive title para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos), “(one who is) called alongside” to give help and assistance.

The references to the Spirit are most notable in the first and third divisions which emphasize the impending departure of Jesus (back to the Father). When Jesus departs, and is no longer physically present with his disciples, the Spirit will be sent to take his place. This is abundantly clear in terms of the framework of the first division, and it is equally clear how closely connected prayer is to the coming of the Spirit. Note the sequence:

    • V. 12: Jesus’ departure (“I am going away”)
    • Vv. 13-14: Prayer/request in Jesus’ name
    • V. 15: Believer’s fulfilling the duty/command of love
    • V. 16: The sending of the Spirit (called “another” para/klhto$, implying that Jesus was the first para/klhto$ [1 Jn 2:1])
    • Vv. 17ff: The Spirit will abide (“remain”, vb me/nw) in and with believers, continuing the presence of Jesus (the Son), and uniting believers with Father and Son

This same sequence is restated in verses 21-27ff (note the context of prayer in vv. 23-24).

In a very real sense, the Spirit is the answer to our prayer. The teaching of Jesus on prayer in Luke 11:1-13 has much the same focus, climaxing with a declaration on God sending the Spirit in answer to his disciples’ prayer (v. 13). The variant reading of the Kingdom-petition in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer (verse 2b [v.l.]) explicitly interprets the coming of God’s Kingdom with the coming of the Spirit. And, indeed, the Spirit is identified with the Kingdom of God, both in the narrative of Luke-Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Acts 1:6-7; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 15:50; Gal 5:21ff). As Jesus’ teaching in Luke 12:22-31 par makes clear, our prayer/requests should focus on the Kingdom of God, rather than on our daily needs, etc.

At the same time, the Spirit guides the prayer of believers. This is implied by the description in the Last Discourse of the Spirit’s work, and of the basic idea of the Spirit as “one called alongside [para/klhto$]” to help and assist us. Throughout the book of Acts, the Spirit is depicted as guiding and directing believers in all aspects of their life and ministry, and we may fairly assume that this includes their prayers as well. Paul makes this connection more specific at several points in his letters (cf. Rom 8:26-27, etc). The principle expressed in Rom 8:5 is worth nothing:

“the (one)s (who are) [i.e. who live] according to the Spirit (have their mind on) the (thing)s of the Spirit”

In other words, our thought and intention will (and should) be focused on the Spirit. The clear implication is that our prayer should be focused on the Spirit—its presence, work, and communication to others—as well.

 

Notes on Prayer: John 14:13-14, etc (continued)

John 14:13-14, continued

A major aspect of the references to prayer in the Last Discourse involves the expression “in Jesus’ name” and what this signifies in the Johannine context. This context is related to the wider early Christian tradition, but the Johannine Gospel give to the tradition a distinctive theological emphasis, along with a new and deeper meaning. The early tradition may be summarized according to three points: (1) disciples of Jesus acting and gathering “in his name”, i.e., as his representatives (Mk 9:37-39 par; Matt 7:22; 18:20; Lk 24:47; Acts 3:6ff; 9:15, etc); (2) speaking/praying “in Jesus’ name” as an extension of the apostolic witness (Acts 4:17-18; 8:12; 15:17; 2 Thess 1:12; Col 3:17; James 5:10-14, etc); and (3) the ritual dimension of being baptized “in(to) Jesus’ name”, that is, into the (religious) identity of being believers in Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 1 Cor 1:13ff; 5:4, etc).

The Johannine development of the early tradition is significant, and must be studied carefully. I offer here an exposition, according to a number of key points.

1. To begin with, references to the name of Jesus in the Gospel of John are primarily related to trust (pi/sti$, vb pisteu/w) in Jesus. This can be seen most clearly in the confessional statements presented (and/or composed) by the Gospel writer—1:12; 2:23; 3:18; 20:31 (cf. also 1 John 3:23; 5:13). Jn 3:18 is part of a discourse by Jesus, but corresponds precisely (and is formulated according to) the Johannine theology. Trust in Jesus is defined by the expression “in his name”, using either the preposition ei)$ (“into”) or the more conventional e)n (“in”). This very much follows the early tradition (Acts 2:21; 4:12ff; Rom 10:13, etc), but with a more precise definition.

2. According to the ancient Near Eastern worldview, the name of a person represents and embodies the nature and character of the person. Thus, to trust in Jesus’ name fundamentally means to trust in the person of Jesus. There is nothing specifically Johannine about this, except insofar as the theology of the Johannine writings presents a distinctive portrait of who Jesus is. For more on the ancient background of names and naming, as it relates to the Gospel and early Christianity, cf. my prior series “You Shall Call His Name…”.

3. The Johannine Gospel and Letters, perhaps more than any other writings in the New Testament, emphasize trust in Jesus in terms of his special (and unique) identity, represented by the two titles “Anointed One” (Messiah/Christ) and “Son of God”. These titles are joined together in the key confessional statements of 11:27 and 20:31 (cf. also 1:34 [v.l.] and 1 Jn 3:23; 5:20), and it is clear that the identity of the (true) believer in Christ depends on the proper (Christological) view of what it means to call Jesus by these titles (cf. especially the discussion running through 1 John).

4. It is the title Son of God that is most pertinent for the Johannine theology and the portrait of Jesus in the Gospel. Throughout the Gospel Discourses, Jesus refers to himself as “the Son” —primarily in the discourses of chapters 5 and 6, but also in the opening sections of the Last Discourse (14:13, cf. also 13:31), and the great Prayer-Discourse (17:1). The statements in 3:16-18, while part of the Nicodemus discourse (of Jesus), are also formulated in accordance with the (Johannine) theology of the Gospel writer.

5. Central to the Johannine Christology, in this regard, is the special relationship between Jesus (the Son) and God the Father. The Father-Son relationship runs through the Gospel Discourses, and is established from the beginning, in the Prologue (1:1, 14, 18). Key statements occur within the chapter 3 discourse-episodes (vv. 16-18, 35-36), and are central to the Discourses of chapter 5 (vv. 17-27, 36-37) and 6 (vv. 27, 37ff, 57). Again this theological theme dominates portions of the Sukkot-discourses (8:16-19, 27-59; 10:15-18, 29-38), and features in the transitional episodes leading into the Passion narrative (and the Last Discourse)—12:26-28, 49-50; 13:1ff.

6. The theological dimension of the Father-Son relationship, within the Johannine Discourses, is based upon two lines of illustration. First, a son naturally imitates the behavior of his father; a dutiful son, in particular, consciously follows his father’s example, which often extends to a period of apprenticeship in his occupation. A number of times in the Discourses, Jesus refers specifically to how he, the Son, does and says what he sees/hears the Father doing/saying (5:19, 36; 8:28, 38ff; 10:37; 12:50; 14:10ff; 15:15). In this regard, the Son (Jesus) speaks and acts in His Father’s name (5:43; 10:25).

Second, is the image of a father providing for his son, giving to him, both in terms of instruction/guidance, but also covering the aspect of inheritance—the son as heir to the father. The Discourses also build upon this idea, emphasizing how the Father gives “all things” to the Son (3:34-35; 16:15). This includes the duty that the Father has given to him, to complete in his time on earth (5:36; 10:18; 17:4ff), and also the power to complete the work–specifically, the life-giving power that belongs to God (5:19-21ff; 6:27ff, 57; 14:10; 17:2). Jesus’ own disciples, those who come to trust in him, were also given to him by the Father (6:37, 44ff, 65; 10:29; 17:2, 6-19ff). All of this can be summarized, in the concluding Prayer-Discourse, by the key references to the name of the Father—which was given to Jesus (the Son), and who, in turn, has given it (i.e., made it known) to believers; note the important statements in 17:6, 11-12, 26.

7. According to the ancient significance of names and naming (cf. above), for Jesus to make known the name of the Father is essentially the same as making known the Father Himself. This is possible, again, because Jesus himself is the Son of the Father, the Son of God. The Son manifests the Father in his own person, because he represents the Father, speaking and acting just as the Father does (with the Father’s authority). He also shares in the Father’s own nature and character, possessing the same power and ability, indicated especially by (a) his life-giving power, and (b) the presence of God’s Spirit. The last point will be discussed further in the upcoming studies.

8. Jesus’ possession of a Divine name is a theme found in the Christ-hymns of Philippians (2:6-11) and Hebrews (1:2b-4), discussed in recent daily notes. In these passages, the “name” of Jesus in not simply “Jesus (Yeshua)”, but a name belonging to God Himself. The context in Hebrews suggests that the “name” is the specific title “Son (of God)”, in the developed Christological sense of the title that is evident throughout both Hebrews and the Johannine writings (cf. above). In the Philippians hymn, the “name” appears to be the divine name YHWH, as represented by the title “Lord” (ku/rio$). A similar dynamic occurs in the Gospel of John, where Jesus possesses the Divine name of God the Father.

Significantly, in Philippians and Hebrews, this Divine naming is associated with the exaltation of Jesus, following his death and resurrection. This reflects the exaltation-Christology of the earliest believers, to which a pre-existence Christology is balanced in the hymns (cf. also Col 1:15-20). What is distinctive in the Johannine Discourses, is the fact that Jesus is clearly identified as the Son of God, and possesses the Divine name, prior to his resurrection—that is, during the time of his earthly ministry, and even stretching back to his pre-existence, before the very creation of the world. In my view, this demonstrates an even more developed Christology within the Johannine writings that goes beyond what is expressed in the other Christ hymns.

9. Finally, along these same lines, we must note one aspect that is truly distinctive—if not unique—to the portrait of Jesus in the Johannine Discourses. It is evinced by the famous “I am” sayings of Jesus that occur throughout the Discourses—6:35ff; 8:12 (also 9:5); 10:7-9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5, cf. also 6:20; 18:5. As nearly all commentators recognize, this “I am” (e)gw/ ei)mi) usage intentionally alludes to ancient religious tradition, associated with the self-revelation of God—and, specifically, to the tradition involving the interpretation of the Divine name YHWH in Exodus 3:14 (LXX). In the Discourses, Jesus is identifying himself with God, even as the Son identifies himself with the Father, and the Logos is identified with the Creator God in the Prologue (1:1ff). Moreover, from the standpoint of Johannine theology, trust and belief in Jesus (= in Jesus’ name) entails a recognition of Jesus as the Divine “I am”. This is expressed rather clearly by the sayings in 8:24, 28 and 13:19 (cf. also 8:58). As is typically the case, the Gospel of John presents early Christian tradition—here, the idea of Jesus possessing the Divine name—with greater theological precision and depth of meaning.

This study, it is to be hoped, will aid greatly in our understanding of the key lines of Johannine thought, regarding the “name of Jesus”, as we continue through the remaining references to prayer in the Last Discourse.

 

Notes on Prayer: John 14:13-14, etc

John 14:13-14, continued

Last week, we began a study on the references to prayer in the Last Discourse of Jesus in the Gospel of John (13:31-16:33). The first such references are the twin sayings of 14:13-14. There are two aspects of these sayings which need to be examined further: (1) the relationship between God the Father and Jesus (the Son), and (2) the precise meaning and significance of prayer “in Jesus’ name”.

Before embarking on a study of these aspects, it is worth surveying the basic outline and focus of these sayings, as they fit a basic pattern. Similar sayings occur elsewhere in the Last Discourse; we shall examine these in turn, but let us begin by citing them here (alongside the dual-saying in 14:13-14):

“any(thing) that you would request in my name, this I will do…
if you would request any(thing of) me in my name, I will do (it)” [14:13-14]

“any(thing) that you would request (of) the Father in my name, he shall give to you” (15:16)
“any(thing) that you would request (of) the Father in my name, he will give (it) to you” (16:23)
(cf. also 14:26)

There are two formal components to these sayings: (a) the promise that the request made by Jesus’ disciples will be answered, and (b) that the request is made “in Jesus’ name”. Each of these components is attested elsewhere in the Gospel Tradition, and in themselves are not unique to the Gospel of John; it is the specific combination that is distinctive of the sayings in the Last Discourse.

The first component (a)—the promise of answered prayer—is found in simple form in 15:7 and 16:24:

    • “whatever you would wish (for), request (it) and it shall come to be (so) for you” (15:7)
    • “(make a) request, and you will receive” (16:24)

There is a Synoptic parallel for the latter, which has an extremely simple, proverbial character, typical of many of Jesus’ sayings:

“(make a) request, and it will be given to you…
every(one mak)ing a request receives (it)” (Matt 7:7-8, par Lk 11:9-10)

There is also a general similarity to the longer Johannine form (15:7) in Matt 21:22 (cf. also Mark 11:24):

“and all (thing)s, whatever you would request in speaking out toward (God) [i.e. in prayer], (if you are) trusting, you will receive.”

In Matt 18:19, there is a different saying which also relates to the Johannine sayings (above):

“if two of you should give voice together [i.e., speak in agreement] upon earth about any deed, that which they would request, it will come to be (so) for them (from) alongside my Father in the heavens.”

The second component (b) of the saying-form (noted above) also has Synoptic parallels. Note, in particular, the saying in Matt 18:20, and its conjunction with the earlier prayer-saying in v. 19:

“For (the place in) which two or three have been brought together in my name, there I am in the middle of them.”

There are other references to Jesus’ disciples speaking and acting “in his name” —Mk 9:37-39 par; Matt 7:22; Lk 6:22; cf. also Mk 13:6 par, and the commissioning-traditions in Lk 24:47; Matt 28:19; [Mk 16:17]. In the Gospel of John, outside of the Last Discourse, the emphasis is on Jesus (the Son) acting in the name of the Father; however, cf. the confessional statements in 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; 20:31 which record the principal early Christian (and Johannine) understanding of trust in Jesus defined as being “in his name”.

Turning again to the twin sayings in Jn 14:13-14, there is an interesting point of difference when compared with the sayings in 15:16 and 16:23. In Jn 14:13-14, prayer is apparently being made to Jesus, and it is he who acts in response to the request; by contrast, in the other two sayings, prayer is directed to the Father, who is the one answering. This seeming inconsistency has troubled commentators at times, and doubtless explains why some manuscripts of 14:13 specify “the Father” as the one to whom the request should be made. However, the interchangeability of roles is of fundamental importance to the Johannine theology, with its unique emphasis on the relationship between Father and Son—especially the key theme that the Son (Jesus) follows the example (and instruction) of his Father, in all that he says and does. Put another way, as the Son, Jesus possesses the same authority and divine/creative power that belongs to the Father; thus, he is able to fill the Father’s role, for example, as the one who hears and responds to prayer.

The same interchangeability is seen in the passages of the Last Discourse that refer to the sending of the Spirit/Paraclete; these will be discussed in an upcoming study. Moreover, this tendency is not limited to the Johannine tradition, but, instead, reflects the early Christology, as it developed among the first generation(s) of believers. As a simple example, the title ku/rio$ (“Lord”), as a divine title, could be applied equally to God the Father (YHWH) and to Jesus; we see evidence of this all throughout the New Testament. Similarly, in the Pauline letters, the (Holy) Spirit can be called the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of [Jesus] Christ”, interchangeably; this is very much like the situation in the Johannine writings, and can be seen elsewhere in the New Testament as well.

The context of 14:13-14, in which Jesus (the Son) is the one who hears and answers prayer, implies the exaltation of Jesus, and his place alongside God the Father in heaven. And, indeed, it is the departure of the Son, back to the Father, that is the central theme of the discourse-segment of 14:1-14 (cf. the previous study). From his place at the “right hand” of God, the Son acts in the Father’s place, with His authority. In certain lines of early Christian tradition, we find the specific idea of Jesus making intercession for believers to the Father (e.g., Rom 8:34; Heb 9:24; 1 John 2:1). This relates to the motif of Jesus as a high priest (cf. Part 9 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”), and assumes his place in heaven, i.e., the heavenly sanctuary, in the presence of God Himself. In any case, the prayer saying in Jn 14:26 alludes to intercession, and includes the role of both Father and Son in responding to believers’ prayer.

In next week’s study, we will look in detail at the second main aspect noted above—that is, the precise meaning and significance of the prayer-request being made in Jesus’ name.

 

Notes on Prayer: John 14:13-14

John 14:13-14

Some of the most important references to prayer in the New Testament are found in the great Last Discourse of Jesus in the Gospel of John. The Johannine writings never use the common Greek terms for prayer (proseuxh/, vb proseu/xomai); instead, the idea of prayer is expressed by the verb ai)te/w, emphasizing making a request of God.

There are significant critical issues surrounding the origin and composition of the Johannine discourses. On the one hand, they are unlike anything we see in the Synoptic Gospels; in addition, they evince a language and style that is distinctly Johannine, and very close, for example, to that of First John. At the same time, there are Synoptic parallels for certain sayings and traditions in the Gospel of John, and there is clear evidence that the discourses, at the very least, are rooted in authentic historical tradition. Thus, the arguments regarding the Discourses—whether they are primarily Johannine compositions, or accurate reflections of Jesus’ own words throughout—run both ways. And, indeed, both aspects must be kept in mind with any study of the Gospel of John.

The great “Last Discourse”, set (in the narrative) on the eve of Jesus’ arrest, actually represents a complex of inter-related discourses, spanning more than three chapters (13:31-16:33). It may be outlined as follows:

    • 13:31-38—Introduction to the Discourse (cf. above)
    • 14:1-31—Discourse/division 1—Jesus’ departure
      • The relationship between Jesus and the Father (vv. 1-14)
      • Jesus’ Words for His Disciples (vv. 15-31)
    • 15:1-16:4a—Discourse/division 2—The Disciples in the World
      • Illustration of the Vine and Branches: Jesus and the Disciples (vv. 1-17)
      • Instruction and Exhortation: The Disciples and the World (15:18-16:4a)
    • 16:4b-28—Discourse/division 3—Jesus’ departure (farewell)
      • The Promise of the Spirit (vv. 4b-15)
      • Jesus’ Departure and Return (vv. 16-24)
      • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 25-28)
    • 16:29-33—Conclusion to the Discourse

The first Discourse/division (14:1-31), the first of two on the primary theme of Jesus’ departure, may be outlined in further detail:

    • 14:1-31—Discourse/division 1—Jesus’ departure
      • The relationship between Jesus and the Father (vv. 1-14)
        • Initial statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 1-4)
        • Question by the disciples [Thomas] (v. 5)
        • Jesus’ response: I AM saying (vv. 6-7)
        • Question by the disciples [Philip] (v. 8)
        • Jesus’ response: I AM saying (vv. 9-11)
        • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 12-14)
      • Jesus’ Words for His Disciples (vv. 15-31)
        • Instruction to the Disciples: Love and the Commandments (vv. 15-24)
          —Initial statement: Promise of the Spirit (vv. 15-17)
          —Instruction: Relation of the Disciples to Jesus and the Father (vv. 18-21)
          —Question by the disciples [Judas] (v. 22)
          —Jesus’ response: The disciples and the world in relation to Jesus and the Father (vv. 23-24)
        • Exhortation for the Disciples: Farewell Promise of Peace (vv. 25-27)
          —Initial statement: Promise of the Spirit (vv. 25-26)
          —Exortation: Jesus’ gift of his Peace (v. 27)
        • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 28-31)

The first sayings on prayer are in 14:13-14, which forms the conclusion of the first section, on the relationship between Jesus and the Father (vv. 1-14). The basic Johannine discourse format is clear: Jesus makes an initial statement (vv. 1-4) which his audience (here, his close disciples) fails to understand (v. 5); Jesus responds in turn with an exposition of the true and deeper meaning of his words (vv. 6ff). Sometimes this discourse-format is expanded to include multiple exchanges between Jesus and his audience, and, indeed, we see this at several points in the Last Discourse. Even within this first section, there are two questions by the disciples, which lead to two different “I Am” sayings by Jesus in response (vv. 6-7, 9-11).

The substantive message of the first section involves the idea of Jesus leading the way for believers to the Father. As his exposition makes clear, this is not to be understood in traditional religious terms, nor in the special sense of a metaphysical translation to heaven (though that will take place in the future). Rather, the “way” to the Father comes through trust in Jesus and through union with him. Trust leads to union, and this essential union is realized through the presence of the Spirit, which is the Spirit of both Father and Son, and represents the abiding presence of Jesus in and among believers. Through this union with Jesus, believers already are in the presence of God the Father, and have access to Him.

This theological and Christological outlook, which is hardly unique to the Last Discourse, but is woven throughout the entire Johannine Gospel, informs the sayings on prayer. There are two sayings on prayer in vv. 13-14, virtually identical in form and meaning, and separated by a key phrase re-emphasizing the relationship between God the Father and Jesus (the Son). I give the translation as a chiasm, to outline this structure:

    • “and any(thing) that you should request in my name, this I will do,
      • (so) that the Father should be given honor in the Son;
    • if you request any(thing of) me in my name, I will do (it).”

The granting of the request has, at its heart, the purpose of giving honor to the Father. The verb doca/zw is an important part of the Johannine vocabulary, occurring 23 times in the Gospel, and 13 times in the Last Discourse and Prayer-Discourse (13:31-16:33 and chap. 17). The Passion-focus of this usage begins to take on prominence in 12:28, and continues through the Last Discourse. By fulfilling the duty and mission placed on him (e)ntolh/) by God the Father, through his sacrificial death and resurrection, the Son (Jesus) gives honor and esteem to the Father. According to the narrative setting of the Last Discourse, the moment of Jesus’ death is drawing near, and so the moment of the Son bringing do/ca (“esteem, honor, glory”) to the Father is also at hand.

But the specific setting here within the discourse is of Jesus’ departure, the return of the Son back to the Father, which implies a post-resurrection context. It is perhaps worth asking how granting the requests of his disciples gives honor to the Father. The answer, I believe, is two-fold. First, it is predicated upon the special relationship between Father and Son; as a dutiful and faithful son, everything Jesus does is to the honor of his father. This is a principal Johannine theme, and is central to the Christology of the Gospel. Secondly, it involves the significance of the request being made in Jesus’ name (“in my name”, e)n tw=| o)no/mati/ mou). As we shall see, this is no superficial designation, as though we were simply to tack on the phrase “in Jesus’ name” to our prayers. Instead, the phrase cuts to the very heart of our identity as believers in Christ, and of our relationship to the Father through him. This will be discussed further in the following studies, as we proceed through all the key references in the Last Discourse.

As these studies will appear on Mondays during the weeks of Advent and Christmas, and will focus on the idea of Jesus’ name, you may wish to explore my earlier Christmas series “You Shall Call His Name…”, which deals with the significance of names and naming in the ancient Near East, and the importance of this within the Gospel Infancy narratives (Matt 1-2; Luke 1-2).

 

Notes on Prayer: James 5:13-18

The recent notes and studies on Hezekiah’s prayer (see the previous study in this series) dealt with the subject of praying for healing/deliverance from illness or disease. This is a longstanding aspect of human religious experience. There is a natural tendency to turn to God (or a particular deity) when one is faced with illness, and especially so if the condition is life-threatening (as in the case of Hezekiah). Even persons whose religious commitment or devotion is minimal are likely to petition God for healing in such circumstances. This continues to be true today, even with our much increased understanding of the scientific physiological causes of disease (and resultant treatment). The current pandemic, however, afflicting people in different parts of the world, has highlighted the limitations of even the finest examples of modern medicine, and brings to the fore a renewed interest in the religious phenomenon of prayer for healing.

Like the psalm that follows the prayer of Hezekiah (in the Isaian version, 38:9-20), and attributed to the king, there are a number of Psalms which are framed as petitionary prayers to YHWH for healing (from life-threatening illness, and/or related dangers). You may wish to consult, for example, my earlier studies on Psalms 6 and 30. In such Psalms, a lament for the suffering one faces alternates with thanksgiving for the deliverance God brings (or will bring). Mixed in with the petition is an appeal to God, based on the fact that the sufferer (the protagonist of the Psalm) has remained faithful and devoted to YHWH, repenting of any sin and disavowing association with any wickedness. The protection God provides the righteous, according to the principle of the covenant-bond, would include rescue/deliverance from any life-threatening danger.

When we turn to the New Testament writings, it is interesting to note how little is said regarding healing from illness—and of prayer for healing, in particular.

To be sure, there are many incidents of healing recorded in the Gospels and Acts. A number of healing miracles performed by Jesus are recorded, some of the episodes being told in a most memorable fashion, often tied to important sayings and teachings of Jesus. Healing miracles were especially characteristic of the Galilean ministry period, according to the narrative structure of the Synoptic Gospels (see esp. Luke 7:21-22 par, cp. 4:18-19ff). In addition to the specific miracles recorded in the Synoptic tradition, we have the key summary statements in Mark 1:34; 3:10 par, etc. Given the close association, in the thought-world of people at the time, between evil spirits and illness/disease, it was natural that miracles of healing were related to exorcism miracles, being performed equally (and at the same time) by Jesus (cf. especially the tradition in Mark 3:22ff par). His disciples were given authority over the evil spirits, so that they could perform the same sorts of healing miracles (Mk 3:15; 6:7, 13 par). This continues among the apostles and early Christian missionaries in the book of Acts (cf. 3:1-16ff; 4:30; 5:15-16; 8:7; 9:32-42; 14:8-10ff; 20:7-12; 28:8), where miracles were performed ‘in the name of Jesus’. Healing miracles were also part of the manifestation and work of the Spirit among believers, at least in the Pauline congregations (according to 1 Cor 12:9, 28ff).

In spite of all this, the recorded miracles of healing are not specifically tied to prayer by the person afflicted. Prayer is mentioned in the exorcism miracle tradition of Mark 9:14-29 par (v. 29), but as a requirement for the person performing the healing (i.e. Jesus’ disciples). The context of the Synoptic narrative tradition in Mk 1:35ff par would suggest that Jesus’ ability to perform healing miracles was connected in some way to his time spent alone in prayer. But nowhere do we see prayer enjoined on the person who is afflicted—i.e., that they should pray for healing, and thus be delivered from affliction. The closest we come to this, perhaps, is in the exchange between Jesus and the blind beggar in Mark 11:47-52 par (cf. also the exchange with the crippled man in John 5:6ff). However, the point is that trust in God (and in Jesus) results in healing, not prayer per se (cf. Acts 14:8-10).

More to the point, nowhere in the New Testament does the author direct or encourage believers to pray for healing when they are afflicted by illness. The inclination to pray to God in such instances was so commonplace (and natural) that perhaps there was no need to mention it; however, given the tendency toward superstition and quasi-magical ritual in such matters, one might expect some direct teaching on the subject. Even in the Lord’s Prayer, there is no petition for healing and physical health as such, unless it is to be subsumed under the request for ‘deliverance from evil’ (Matt 6:13); given the close connection between evil spirits and disease, this is certainly possible. The best support for the idea of praying for healing is found in Jesus’ instruction to his disciples in the “Last Discourse”, if we view requests to the Father “in my name” as a more generalized extension of the apostolic healings peformed ‘in Jesus’ name’ (Jn 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24ff; cp. Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10ff, 30; 16:18; 19:13ff); requests for healing would thus be rightly included among believers’ prayers to God.

There is, however, little evidence on this point in the remainder of the New Testament writings. Paul refers repeatedly to prayer for deliverance, but typically in the context of rescuing he (and other ministers) from dangers and obstacles in proclaiming the Gospel (Rom 1:10; 15:30; Phil 1:19; Col 4:3; 2 Thess 3:1, etc), and not for healing from illness or disease as such. There is really only one passage in the New Testament that ties together prayer and healing from disease, giving specific direction for believers in the matter: James 5:13-18.

James 5:13-18

The teaching in this passage is relatively straightforward, even if we do not have complete information on the details of the prayer/anointing ritual that are being referenced.

“Does any(one) among you suffer bad(ly)? He must speak out toward (God) [i.e. pray]. Does any(one) have a good impulse? He must make music (to God).” (v. 13)

Two general conditions are described here: (1) suffering some kind of trouble or affliction (not necessarily illness or disease), as indicated by the verb kakopaqe/w (“suffer bad[ly]”); and (2) the opposite, where things are going well for a person, so that one “has a good impulse” (eu)qume/w, in English idiom we might say “is in good spirits”). One is to “speak out toward” God, making a request in prayer, when suffering affliction.

“Is any(one) among you without strength [i.e. sick/weak]? He must call alongside the elders of (the ones) called out (to assemble) [i.e. the congregation], and they must speak out toward (God) over him, rubbing [him] with oil in the name of the Lord.” (v. 14)

Quite often, sickness is defined by the term a)sqenh/$ (lit. “without strength”); here the denominative verb as)qene/w (occurring 33 times in the NT) is used, meaning “be without strength” (i.e. “be sick, weak”). This refers specifically to someone who is sick or weakened by illness, disease, or a debilitating condition. Such a person ought to call on leading ministers (“elders”) of the congregation, and it is they who will pray to God, anointing (lit. rubbing) him with oil reserved (and consecrated) for just such a ritual purpose. All of this is done “in the name of the Lord”, that is, in Jesus’ name, in accordance with early Christian tradition (cf. above).

“And the (word) of trust, spoken out (to God), shall save the (one) being wearied (by sickness), and the Lord shall raise him (up); and, if he would have been doing (any) sinful (thing)s, they shall be released [i.e. forgiven] for him.” (v. 15)

Interestingly, here it is not the trust/faith of the sick person, but of those ministering to him, that leads to healing. The trust of the sick person certainly is implicit in the process, at least insofar as he/she has trusted enough to call on the elders for help. Some allowance would doubtless be made for the person’s weakened condition; in such instances, it is necessary for the rest of the community (esp. the leaders of the congregation) to give their strength (of faith) to the person in his/her weakness. The trust of the ministers is expressed through their prayer, spoken out (loud) to God. This verse would seem to promise that such a prayer will be answered, when performed in the proper context of the community, where it is done “in Jesus’ name”.

On the latter point, there may certainly be a tendency to treat prayer “in Jesus’ name” as a quasi-magical formula, which, in turn, would lead to a superstitious sort of Christian practice. It may be debated the extent to which a magical healing-formula is in view here in the letter of James, any more so than in the early apostolic miracle-traditions in the book of Acts (cf. above). In the best sense, we are dealing not with a specific formula, but of trust in the divine power of Jesus Christ that is at work, in and among believers, through his Spirit (which also the Spirit of God). This seems to be specified here by the expression eu)xh\ th=$ pi/stew$ (“[word] of trust spoken out”). Ultimately, it is the power of Christ himself (“the Lord”) that raises the person back to health.

The verse here also makes a rather clear association between sickness/illness and sin, though recognizing (as elsewhere in the New Testament), that such illness is not necessarily the direct result of sin. Thus, there is the conditional statement here, using the subjunctive (and introduced by the conditional particle e)a/n): “if any one would have been doing (any) sinful (thing)s”, i.e., if the person has been committing any sins that may have led to his/her illness. The promise is that, through the prayer of trust, such sins will be forgiven (lit. “released”). In all likelihood, there is a similar connection between sin and illness in 1 John 5:14-17, a passage for which a precise interpretation has been notoriously difficult (and controversial). I discuss it at length in prior notes and studies. Whatever else one may say about the 1 John passage, it deals with the issue of the prayer by the community for a person who has sinned, and who may be suffering (illness?) as a result.

“So (also) you must give out an account as one to (each) other of the sins (you commit), and you must speak out (to God) over (one an)other, so that you may be healed. The request (to God) of a just (person) has much strength, being at work in (him).” (v. 16)

The connection between sin and illness is further extended here, with an instruction intended to prevent such sickness from occurring, and to bring about regular and timely healing of illness, before it reaches the point where it is necessary to call on the elders. This involves the public acknowledgement (i.e. confession) of sin, done on a regular basis. Admittedly, this is an aspect of early Christian practice that has largely disappeared from congregation life over the centuries, and is practically non-existent in most modern day churches. One expects that it would be most difficult to restore the practice, even if one believed that it should be restored (a point that can be debated). It does, however, reflect a sense of cohesive congregational unity that can be judged as quite healthy, on the whole. Like most aspects of communal Christian life, it requires that the practice be rooted in genuine trust, love, and the guidance of the Spirit. This latter point seems to emphasized here in the closing statement, regarding the strength of a just/righteous person’s prayer, based as it is upon the power of God/Christ that is “working in” (vb e)nerge/w) the believer—which we must identify with the Spirit, though it is not stated so in the letter. We might fill in the translation as “(God’s power) being at work (in him)”. On the role of the Spirit, as superseding any specific congregational ritual or practice, this point will be discussed in detail in an upcoming study.

From a Christian standpoint, the just/righteous (di/kaio$) person means, primarily, one who trusts in Jesus; yet the author concludes the discussion with an example of an earlier kind of “righteous one”, from the Old Testament (vv. 17-18)—the prophet Elijah, whose miracle-working power is attributed to his faith and earnest prayer to God. The illustration is taken specifically from the tradition in 1 Kings 18. Elijah was not especially associated with prayer in the Old Testament narratives, but this aspect became more prominent in subsequent Jewish tradition (e.g., 2/4 Esdras 7:109; m. Taan. 2:4; b. Sanh. 113a; j. Sanh. 10, 28b, etc; cf. Davids, p. 197).

Apart from this passage in James (and the possible context of 1 John 5:14-17, cf. above), there is only one other instance in the New Testament where health and healing are connected with prayer—in 3 John 2. There the sentiment is expressed in the most general manner: it is a wish for health and wholeness (in the body), even as things go well for the person in their soul.

To the relative paucity of references to prayer for healing, we must also add one famous passage where God does not answer a faithful believer’s fervent prayer for healing from a troublesome ailment. This, as you may guess, is Paul’s famous “thorn in the flesh” illustration in 2 Corinthians 12:7b-10. It will be discussed in the Notes on Prayer next Monday.

 

January 9: Baptism (Acts 2:38 etc)

Baptism in the Name of Jesus

Having considered the command by Jesus to disciples to baptize in the “Great Commission at the close of the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 28:18-20, cf. the previous note), it is worth looking a bit more closely at the references to baptism being performed “in the name of Jesus”, as this represents a unique early Christian development of the dunking/washing ritual. There are five such references in the book of Acts—2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16.

The Name

Ancient Near Eastern cultures treated names and naming in a quite different manner than modern Western society. The name had a dynamic, magical quality, effectively embodying the character and essence of the person. This was all the more true with regard to religious belief—to “call upon” or to invoke the name of a deity was fundamental to ancient religious practice and identity (Gen 4:26b, etc). The invocation and use of a divine name also had to be done with great care—there was considerable power involved, and danger if handled improperly; this is the situation which underlies the famous command regarding the name of YHWH/Yahweh (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11). In addition to its use in religious ritual, the divine name would be invoked in oaths, treaties and other agreements—both for the purpose of guaranteeing truthfulness and fidelity, and also to bind the oath or agreement, etc, under the power of the god. There would be divine blessing for the one who fulfills and agreement, but divine curse or punishment for the one who violates it. Indeed, there was believed to be theurgic power and efficacy in the name, which could be invoked over just about any area of daily life.

The Name of Jesus

For early Christians, it was specifically the name of Yeshua (Jesus) which was central to religious belief and practice. Already in the earliest layers of Christian tradition, the belief in Jesus’ deity—as the Son of God who is now seated in glory at the right hand of God the Father (YHWH)—was well-established. All aspects of Christian religious life took place according to the name of Jesus. This is expressed clearly in the book of Acts; note the following examples:

In the Gospels, there are number of sayings and teachings by Jesus where he refers to “my name”—Mark 9:37-39; 13:6 pars; [16:17]; Matthew 18:20; also Luke 24:47. Especially significant is the teaching in the Discourses of John, cf. Jn 14:13-14, 26; 15:16, 21; 16:23-26; also 3:18. The emphasis there is on believers requesting of God the Father in Jesus’ name. Also important is the related idea that Jesus himself has come—i.e. speaks, works and acts—in the name of the Father (Jn 5:43; 10:3, 25; 12:28; 17:6, 11-12, 26; cf. also Mk 9:37; 11:9 pars; Matt 23:39 par).

Baptism in Jesus’ Name

The central, intiatory act of baptism, marking one’s conversion and entry into the Community of believers, in the early Christian period was performed specifically “in the name of Jesus”. Given the religious importance and significance of this (divine) name (cf. above), this is hardly surprising. However, it is important to note that is especially prominent in the earlier Christian tradition (as recorded in the book of Acts), and is less commonly attested in later periods. Here are the key passages, where baptism is said to be:

    • Acts 2:38—”upon [e)pi/] the name of Yeshua into/unto a change-of-mind [i.e. repentance]” (Note: some MSS read “in” [e)n] instead of “upon”). This follows precisely the formula in Luke 24:47.
    • Acts 8:16—”into [ei)$] the name of the Lord Yeshua”, after which they receive the Holy Spirit (v. 17)
    • Acts 10:48—”in [e)n] the name of Yeshua (the) Anointed”, after having received the Spirit prior (vv. 44ff)
    • Acts 19:5—”into [ei)$] the name of the Lord Yeshua”, parallel to believers trusting in(to) [ei)$] Jesus (v. 4)
    • Cf. also 1 Cor 1:13, 15—”into the name of…”

Acts 2:38; 19:5; 22:16

We can see how this detail expands the meaning of baptism by considering three of the references in Acts. In each instance, we find a distinct development from the earlier/original context of the dunkings performed by John. First, consider the wording by Peter in 2:38:

“You must change your mind(set) [i.e. repent, metanoh/sate] and be dunked [baptisqh/tw], each (one) of you, upon the name of Yeshua (the) Anointed, unto (the) release of your sins…”

If we were to omit the italicized phrase, the wording would be virtually identical to the description of John’s baptisms in Mark 1:4 par. The dunking/baptism signified a “release” (a&fesi$) of sins, when accompanied by repentance (lit. a “change of mind”). How this would would function, in the new early Christian setting, is indicated by the prescriptive language in 22:16:

“And now, (for) what [i.e. why] are you (waiting) about to (act)? Standing up, you must be dunked [ba/ptisai] and wash your sins (away) from (you), calling upon his name.”

Here, it is expected that the believer would “call upon Jesus [i.e. his name]” while he/she was being dunked in the water, providing one of the only indications in the New Testament of how the early ritual would have been performed. Also, more clearly expressed is how the dunking effects the “release” (or putting away) of sins—the water “washes away” a person’s sins, bringing cleansing. Thus, in its basic form and significance, early Christian baptism differed little from the baptisms by John; this helps to explain the narrative detail in Acts 19:1-7, where baptism serves to distinguish believers in Jesus Christ from the followers of John. There are in fact two key points of difference: (1) that baptism is performed “in the name of Jesus”, and (2) that it involves the presence and work of the Holy Spirit. The second point is what is being emphasized in 19:2-6 (and will be discussed in the next daily note); however, the first is also and important part of the contrast that the narrative establishes:

“And Paul said, ‘Yohanan dunked with a dunking [ba/ptisma] of a change-of-mind [i.e. repentance], saying to the people that they should trust in the (one) coming after him—that is, in Yeshua’. And (hav)ing heard (this), they were dunked in the name of Yeshua.” (vv. 4-5)

Thus, the dunking still signifies a repentance and cleansing from sin, but now it is joined with a confession of one’s trust (pi/sti$) in Jesus as the Messiah. The point of the contrast between Jesus and John is Messianic, with the key title “the one coming” (o( e)rxo/meno$, cf. my earlier note) being applied to Jesus, not John.

The early Christian Development

These references in Acts demonstrate how important the name of Jesus was to the early Christian understanding of baptism, and that it fundamentally signified belief in [ei)$] Jesus. Matthew 28:19 uses the same idiom of baptism “into [ei)$] the name of…”. It was also said of John’s baptism that it was “into [ei)$] a change-of mind [i.e. repentance]” (Matt 3:11, cf. Lk 24:47; Acts 2:38), where the preposition ei)$ indicates purpose or result. Elsewhere in Gospel tradition, John’s baptizing is described as being “of [i.e. for, leading to] repentance” and “into [ei)$] release [i.e. forgiveness]” (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4), i.e. for the purpose of (and resulting in) the forgiveness of sins. There are two key aspects of the use of ei)$ (“into”) with regard to baptism:

    1. It reflects trust/faith in(to) Jesus—Matt 18:6 par; Acts 10:43; 19:4-5; 20:21; 24:24; 26:18. The idiom is especially frequent in the Gospel of John: Jn 2:11; 3:16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 40; 7:31, 38-39; 8:30; 9:35-36; 10:42; 11:25-26, 45, 48; 12:36-37, 44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; 17:20. The parallel use of e)n (“in”) at Jn 3:15; 8:31 strongly suggests that the expressions “trust in” and “trust into” are virtually equivalent (cf. Mk 1:15; Acts 18:8). Also generally synonymous is the phrase “trust upon [e)pi] (the Lord) Jesus”, cf. Acts 3:16; 9:42; 11:17; 16:31.
    2. It signifies entrance into the Community and spiritual/symbolic union with Jesus. This theme is developed considerably by Paul in several of his letters, where we find the phrase “dunked/baptized into (the) Anointed {Christ}”. The key verse is Galatians 3:27—”as many of you (as) have been dunked into (the) Anointed, you have sunk in(to the) Anointed [i.e. put him on as a garment]”. The emphasis is no longer on the name of Jesus, even though Paul still uses this language (cf. 1 Cor 1:2, 10ff; 5:4; 6:11; Col 3:17; 2 Thess 1:12; 3:6, etc); rather, it is on the person of Christ. In Romans 6:3-4, baptism is interpreted as symbolizing the believer’s participation in the death (and resurrection) of Jesus (cf. Col 2:12). Cf. also 1 Cor 10:2; 12:13—the latter reference specifically emphasizing baptism into one body (the Community as the body of Christ) and in one Spirit (Eph 4:4-5).

On the first point, early Christians were careful to ensure that the baptism ritual was tied to a confession of faith in Jesus; this explains the interpolation at Acts 8:36, with verse 37 being added by copyists (and preserved in a number of manuscripts and versions) to avoid any misunderstanding. The second point is more closely related to association of baptism with the Holy Spirit, and it is this aspect of the ritual that we will examine in the next note.

May 20: Matthew 28:18-20 (concluded)

Matthew 28:18-20 (concluded)

In yesterday’s note I looked at the specific phrase “baptizing them into the name of [ei)$ to\ o&noma tou=]…”; today, I will proceed to examine the trinitarian phrase which follows: “…of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit“. Given the emphasis on baptism in the name of Jesus in the earliest Christian period (cf. the previous note), and based on the other sayings preserved in the Gospels, we might expect Jesus to have said simply, “…baptizing them into my name“. Many critical commentators consider the apparent trinitarian construct here to be a somewhat later formula retrojected into the words of the historical Jesus. This possibility will be addressed briefly after an examination of each portion of the three-fold phrase.

“of the Father” [tou= patro\$]

That Jesus would reference the Father in his final words to his disciples is hardly unusual, since God as Father was a central element of his teaching, as recorded throughout the Gospel Tradition. The idea, of course, is ancient, going back to Old Testament and Israelite tradition (Ex 4:22; Deut 32:6; Ps 89:26; Isa 1:2; 63:16; 64:8; Hos 11:1; Jer 3:19; 31:9; Mal 2:10, etc), and even earlier—virtually a universal religious concept. Jesus makes frequent use of the title “Father”—both in his own address to God, and in instruction to his followers—too many to list here, there being nearly 200 occurrences in the Gospels. Perhaps the most famous and well-known instance is to found in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9 / Lk 11:2), a passage which specifically refers to the Father’s name. There are an especially high number of references to the Father in Matthew—notably in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7, cf. 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, etc), but elsewhere through the Gospel as well (Matt 10:20, 29, 33; 12:50; 13:43; 15:13; 16:17, 27, et al). An even more distinctive (and frequent) use of “(my) Father” is found in the Discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John (more than 100 references), including several sayings which specifically relate to the name of the Father:

    • John 5:43; 10:3, 25—Jesus claims to have come in the Father’s name, working (miracles, etc) in His name; cf. also Jn 12:13 par
    • John 12:28—Jesus asks the Father to make His name honored/esteemed (i.e. glorified) through the Son
    • John 17—In the great prayer that concludes the Discourses of chaps. 13-17, Jesus declares that he has manifested and made known the Father’s name to his disciples (vv. 6, 26), and prays that they continue to be kept/guarded in His name (vv. 11-12)

There are also sayings which express the other side of the reciprocal relationship between Father and Son, where Jesus instructs his followers that, when they pray and bring petition to the Father, they should specifically make the request “in my name”—cf. John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23—the idea being that Jesus will be working/acting on their behalf with the Father. For indication of a similar relationship between Father and Son (Jesus) in the Synoptic Gospels, cf. Matt 11:25-27 par; Mark 13:32 par; 14:36. Especially significant are the sayings which connect Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John (cf. below).

References to God as Father are rather less frequent in the remainder of the New Testament. Paul often sets “God the Father” parallel with “the Lord Jesus Christ” in a basic creedal construction (Rom 1:7; 15:6; 1 Cor 1:3; 8:6; 2 Cor 1:2-3; 11:31; Gal 1:3f; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess 1:1-2; 2:16; Philem 3; Col 1:3; 3:17; also Eph 1:2-3, 17; 5:20; 6:23, etc); and there are several other passages which reflect basic theological or Christological formulae (e.g., 1 Pet 1:2-3; Jude 1; Rev 1:6; and cf. throughout 1 John). However, with regard to the baptism formula in Matt 28:19, it is worth noting that: (a) there is virtually no reference to the name of the Father in the New Testament outside of the sayings by Jesus referenced above, and (b) there is no evidence that early believers were ever baptized “in the name of the Father”.

On the first point, from the traditional Israelite/Jewish point of view, the name of God the Father was YHWH/Yahweh, which, as Christianity spread among Greek-speakers, was typically expressed by the title “Lord” (Ku/rio$). Gradually, this title was applied more and more to Jesus, and its distinctive association with YHWH was largely lost to believers in the Greco-Roman world. As we have already seen, it was the name of Jesus that was of primary importance for early believers.

“of the Son” [tou= ui(ou=]

Every relevant passage in the New Testament refers to baptism in the name of Jesus (cf. the discussion in the previous note). Now, early Christians would automatically understand that being baptized into Jesus (or into his name) meant the same as being baptized into the Son; however, if we accept the authenticity of Matt 28:19, it is worth considering precisely what Jesus would have meant here by “Son”.

In the (Synoptic) Gospels, Jesus never uses the title “Son of God” of himself (only in Jn 3:18; 5:25; 9:35 v.l.; 10:36; 11:4)—it is applied to him by others (also Jn 1:34, 49; 11:27; 19:7), though there is no indication that he ever denied or contradicted its use (cf. Mark 14:62 for a relatively clear affirmation; but cp. Matt 26:64; Lk 22:67-70). In the sayings of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus typically refers to himself by the Semitic expression “Son of Man”, which at times may be partially synonymous with “Anointed One” (Messiah), and, in certain passages, serves to identify Jesus as God’s heavenly representative (cf. Dan 7:13-14) who will appear at the end-time; but it always has a distinct range of meaning from “Son of God”. At best, there is an association between Jesus as “Son of Man” and “Son of God” in the juxtaposition of Mk 14:61-62a and 14:62b (par); which can also be inferred in the vision of Stephen in Acts 7:56. The “Son of Man” sayings in the Gospel of John are unique in that they express (or assume) the idea of Jesus’ pre-existent deity—i.e., he is the Son who has come down from the Father (as the Son of Man); following his death and exaltation (glorification), he will return to the Father in heaven (Jn 1:51; 3:13-14; 6:27, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31). Elsewhere in John, Jesus simply refers to himself as “the Son”, usually in the context of his relationship to the Father (cf. above)—Jn 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-27; 6:40; 8:36-38; 14:13; 17:1; note also 1:14.

If Matt 28:19 is interpreted as a Christian formula, then it need not mean anything more than that the specific words “in the name of the Son”, etc, are to be recited in the performance of baptism (cf. below). Even so, it is worth noting, that this formula is never used elsewhere in the New Testament—believers are baptized “in the name of Jesus”, but never “in the name of the Son“. Indeed the very expression “name of the Son” is extremely rare, occurring only in the Johannine tradition—Jn 3:18; 1 Jn 3:23; 5:13, and cf. also Jn 20:31—where the emphasis is entirely on faith/trust in the name of the Son.

“of the holy Spirit” [tou= a(gi/ou pneu/mato$]

There is a clear association of the Spirit with the rite of baptism in early Christian tradition, as indicated in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 2:38-41; 8:12-17; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 11:15-17; 19:2-6), where believers receive the Holy Spirit as an event parallel to, and coordinate with, the symbolic act of baptism. This clearly is understood as a fulfillment of the prediction uttered by John the Baptist (and/or Jesus himself) that, just as John baptized in water, so Jesus would baptize believers in the Holy Spirit (cf. the earlier note on Mark 1:8 par; Jn 1:26, 31, 33; Acts 1:5; 11:16). According to this parallel, the Spirit is symbolized by water, which is a relatively common motif in the Old Testament (cf. Joel 2:28ff, cited in Acts 2:17-18, 33—the Spirit “poured out” like water). Elsewhere in the New Testament (in Paul’s letters), the regular idiom is baptism into Christ—his death, his body, his name, etc. Paul generally does not associate the Spirit specifically with baptism, though the idea is certainly implied (cf. Rom 6:4; Gal 3:27); only in 1 Cor 12:13 is this made explicit—”for in one Spirit we are all dunked [i.e. baptized] into one Body”. Note the chiastic parallel in the syntax of the phrase:

    • in [e)n] one Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit)
      —we are all dunked/baptized
    • into [ei)$] one Body (i.e. the person of Jesus Christ, symbolized by the Community)

This effectively results in a two-fold baptismal ‘formula’, which could easily be supplemented by the (proto-)Trinitarian syntax in the earlier verses 4-6:

    • the same Spirit (v. 4)
    • the same Lord [i.e. Jesus, the Son] (v. 5)
    • the same God [i.e. the Father] (v. 6)

Again, as in the case of “the Father” and “the Son” (cf. above), believers in the New Testament are never baptized “in the name of the Holy Spirit”; indeed, the expression “name of the (holy) Spirit” never occurs outside of Matt 28:19. At best, there are several passages in which the Spirit is associated specifically with “the name of Jesus“—Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Pet 4:14; and, most notably, John 14:26. Of these, only Acts 2:38 has the context of baptism, but Jn 14:26 is certainly more relevant to a ‘trinitarian’ formulation: “…the holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my [i.e. the Son’s] name“. This verse will be discussed, along with the other Spirit/Paraclete references (Jn 14:16; 15:26; 16:7), in an upcoming note.

The Didache 7

A study of Matt 28:19 cannot be complete without consideration of the similar formula in Didache 7:1, part of a brief instruction in chapter 7 regarding baptism. Verse 1 reads:

“…having said all these things before(hand) [i.e. informed/instructed the believer], ‘dunk [i.e. baptize] into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit’ in living [i.e. fresh, running] water”

The portion in single quotes is virtually identical with the formula in Matthew; only the form of the verb is different, as befitting the context. The main critical question is: Does the Didache simply quote Matthew 28:19, or does it preserve a separate version of the instruction, transmitted independently? If the latter, does this come down as an authentic saying from Jesus, or as an (apostolic) tradition? Unfortunately, the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers (c. 90-150) often do not give specific citations, so it can be difficult to know for certain if the authors are citing from a written Gospel (e.g. Matthew) or have preserved sayings of Jesus and Gospel traditions independently. The date assigned for the Didache (“Teaching [of the Twelve Apostles]”) has ranged from very early (1st century) to very late (3rd-4th century); most (critical) commentators today would place it in the first half of the 2nd century, with the possibility that it preserves teaching and tradition from the late 1st century (c. 70-100 A.D.). What is important to note, is that already by this time (c. 80-110 A.D.?), the passage corresponding to Matt 28:19 has come to be treated as a fixed formula. The Didache indicates that it would be recited as part of the baptism ritual, as the three-fold act mentioned in 7:3 demonstrates. A similar practice is attested in the second and third centuries (Justin, First Apology 61; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 26; Apostolic Constitutions 8:47 [canon 50]). As we have noted above, this contrasts with early Christian tradition recorded in the New Testament, where believers were, it would seem, only baptized “in the name of Jesus”. The traditions recorded in the book of Acts, if authentic, date from c. 30-60 (with the book itself completed some time after 70 A.D.), making them considerably earlier than the earliest date usually given for the Didache.

A final comment on the authenticity of Matt 28:19 must wait until we have considered the other post-resurrection Commission passages in the Gospels, especially that in Luke 24:45-49, which I will do in the next daily note.