Journal for the Study of the

New Testament
http://jnt.sagepub.com

The Name of Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles

J.A. Ziesler
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1979; 2; 28
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X7900200402

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/4/28

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the New Testament can be
found at:

Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
28

The Name of Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles

J.A. Ziesler
The University of Bristol

Luke in Acts does not use a ’concept of the name of Jesus’

to convey the presence of an otherwise absent Lord, nor to
substitute for that presence. The uses of ’name’ are
diverse but none of them appears to serve that purpose.
Moreover, their diversity makes it inappropriate to speak
of a ’concept’ at all. If there is any common tendency,
it is to converge on the (Lukan) gospel as what the name
conveys.

It is sometimes held that though Luke has moved Jesus firmly off
the stage, he contrives to bring him back again through various
devices, among them his ’name’/l/. The post-Ascension Lord is
formally absent, but effectively present because his name is
present and active. It will be our task to enquire whether this
is indeed so, and to examine the way or ways in which Luke in
Acts uses what is sometimes called the concept of name. One of
our problems is the richness and variety of background, and

though it may be true that in the end all the uses of ’name’ go
back to a fundamental Namensglaube /2/, more immediately there
appear to be differing expressions in different areas of the con-
temporary world. In the biblical tradition generally, ’name’ is
often a periphrasis for the person, and represents the reality of
that person especially when God is being spoken of. To glorify
God and to glorify his Name are not two different things, for
the Name is the reality and conveys his power or authority or
both. Further, the name of someone used in healing and
especially in exorcism, both in Judaism and in Hellenistic magic,
amounted to invoking the power of that person /3/. In magic, of
course, to know and use the name of a god was to have a claim on
the power of that god, and indeed to have a lever by which that
power could be exercised at the will of the magician (which is
doubtless one reason why orthodox Jews were insistent on keeping
the name of God secret - but they did not succeed and that name
was widely used in magical
incantations, as IIull has shown /4/).
It is also usually maintained that to teach something in the name
of someone else was to invoke that person’s authority: if Rabbi X
makes a statement ’in the name of’ Rabbi Y, he is claiming the

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 29

latter’s authority - perhaps because he repeats what Ribbi Y said,

or claims to give the true interpretation of what Rabbi Y said, or
even because this is what Rabbi Y would have said if he had been
faced with this situation or this question. What such varied
uses seem to have in common, at least in their existing form, is
some sort of authority or power.

It is clear then that the fact that Luke makes considerable

use of ’the name’ of Jesus does not in itself need explanation.
What does need examination is how he uses it, and his uses can
appropriately be looked at under four heads.

_1. Baptism ’in the name of’ Jesus Christ (Acts 2.38; 8.16;
10.48; 19.5; perhaps 22.16). In 22.16, the conjunction of
baptism and forgiveness with ’calling upon his name’ justifies us
in bearing it in mind when looking at this group of passages.

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is associated with the

coming of the Holy Spirit, which may precede it as in 10.48, or
follow it at once as in 2.38 (presumably) and 19.5, or after a

considerable interval as in 8.16. The reconciliation of these

different orders of events is notoriously difficult /5/, but our
concern is with the meaning of ’name’. Nevertheless the asso-
ciation with the gift of the Spirit is important, because the
meaning of the gift is that it makes the recipient a Christian,
as Djinn has shown /6/. Quite apart from the meaning of baptism
in itself, we have therefore reason to suppose that ’baptism in
the name of Jesus Christ’ is about becoming Christian.

The English in the name of’I conceals the fact that in Greek
two or probably three different prepositions are used. In 8.16
and 19.5 we have ’il£ - literally into the name of Jesus. In
10.48 we have Ev , and in 2.38 though some MSS read Ev
again, the more likely reading is E1L~ , It could be that
both 10.48 and 2.38 refer to the authority with which the baptism
is carried out, ’In the name of Jesus I baptise....’, but that in
8.16 and 19.5 it is the result of the is meant, ioe.
baptism that
belonging to Jesus Christ. Especially if ,~%~ is read in 2.38,
however, it is possible that something like 22a16 is in mind in
both 2.38 and 10.48, i.e. the baptisand calls on the name of
Jesus /7/. To go by Old Testament models, where calling on the
name of Yahweh means worshipping him, trusting in his power, and
above all acknowledging that one belongs to him /8/, this would
mean acknowledging that the baptisand belongs to Jesus Christ.

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
30

Certainly Acts 9.14,21 point in this direction /9/. This brings

us to the position that the Ev and ’È:1tl. instances have a
meaning not perceptibly different from that usually ascribed to
the Ei,S~ instances (8.16; 19.5). Such a meaning suits 10.48
well, where ’in the name of Jesus Christ’ goes most naturally
neither with ’commanded’ nor with the act of baptising, but with
’them’, the baptisands. It can thus be seen as part of the
meaning of baptism for them, rather than as the authority with
which they were baptised. Even in 2.38, we may tentatively
argue that what is at stake above all is belonging to Jesus
Christ, and being forgiven. The call to baptism follows the
peroration to Peter’s speech in which he depicts Jesus as firmly
enthroned as ’both Lord and Christ’ (2.36). What then must his
hearers do (2.37)? Obviously they must repent, but also acknow-
ledge Jesus as Lord and Christ, the one whose exaltation
vindicates his divine appointment and authority. Their baptism
conveys them under that hitherto denied authority and power /10/,
and they then discover what real power is and how truly God has
vindicated Jesus, for they receive the gift of the Spirit. The
Spirit is both be sign of Jesus’ authority and also the means
by which that authority is now manifested and exercised. The
context of 2.38 thus tends to confirm our rather tentative view
that 2.38 and 10.48 are to be understood in much the same way as
8.16 and 19.5 /11/.

So far we have taken for granted that baptism elc TO ovopa

is to do with belonging (to Jesus Christ). Is that assumption
justified? The correct background of the phrase has long been
a matter of dispute. Heitmllller /12/ argued that it was indebted
to Hellenistic commercial usage, where something is paid into
someone’s account (’into his name’) and so becomes his property.
Being baptised into Christ then means becoming his property and
possession, being under his lordship. The difficulty with this,
as has often been noted, is that it is a little gratuitous to

suppose that all a phrase’s associations would travel with it from

one world of discourse to another. Billerbeck, Bietenhard and
others /13/ have argued on the other hand that the phrase is
indebted to the Hebrew 0~ used with a final meaning: ’to
become the property of, be assigned to, the one who is named’0
There are of course difficulties about this, if not for Paul
(1 Cor.1.13,15) then at least for Luke, who is not usually
regarded as having his Greek expression controlled by Hebrew,
although the phrase could be traditional and derive from the
Palestinian Church. A much more serious difficulty has been
raised recently by L. Hartman /14/ who has shown that far too

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 31

much grammatical precision has been credited to OW5 ,, and that

in itself it does no more than specify the reference of the
baptism, i.e. that it is Christian. The Rabbinic usage of the
expression is widely varied, so much so that nothing precise can
be deduced from it. I think Ha.ctJaan’ s case is cogent, but there
is more to be said. Whatever ’into the name of’ by itself
suggests, in 1 Cor.1.13,15 there is no doubt that ’baptism into
the name of Paul’ means ’belonging to, being under the lordship
of, Paul’. By inference, being baptised into the name of Jesus
Christ means being under Christ’s lordship /15/. In Acts 8.16
and 19.5, the association with the gift of the Spirit implies,
as we have seen, a similar meaning. Nevertheless it m.~st be
conceded to Hartman that it is the total event, and not ’the
name’ that gives this result. We cannot, therefore, claim that
some ’concept of the name’ here effects the presence of Jesus.

Indeed, the peculiarities of the relationship between baptism

and the gift of the Spirit endorse our rejection of that claim,
for they are not just two different moments of the same event,
but can be placed at a distance from one another. This is not
because the gift of the Spirit represents a second, higher stage
of being Christian: James Dann has shown that for Luke there was
no Christian who lacked the Spirit, and no one who had the Spirit

but was not a Christian /16/. The distance is of a piece with

the distance which Luke generally places between Jesus and the
Spirit, who follows Jesus in the Heilsgeschichte. With the one
exception of Acts 16.7 /17/, he is not the Spirit of Jesus as he
is in Paul and John, though he may be sent at the instigation of
Jesus or by his agency.
even The longish interval between the
departure of Jesus and Pentecost in itself suggests disjunction,
and while both Jesus and the Spirit point to the one God and his
activity, Luke does not (except in Acts 16.7) represent the
activity of the Spirit as another mode of Christ’s being and
activity. Christ offers lordship and authority, but from the
past or from heaven; the Spirit offers power and experienced
reality in the present. This disjunction helps to explain the
curious relationship between the gift of the Spirit and baptism
into the name cf Jesus: though they cannot be separated, they can
be distinguished, because the roles of Christ now and of the
Spirit now can be distinguished, though not separated. In sum,
it is the Spirit who is present and active, not Christ, and not
’his r.ame’, at least in baptismal contexts. It is not suggested
that Luke thought all this out carefully, and then resolved to
adhere more or less strictly to the pattern, but rather that his
presuppositions emerge detectably in this matter - presuppositions
Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008
© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
32

which are not identical with those of other NT writers.

2. Preaching, Teaching, or Speaking ’in the of’ Jesus name

(Acts 4.17,18; 5.28,40 - ; 9.27,28 - both

all ev
lal )o At
first glance it appears likely that we have here an authorisation
formula. The different prepositions do not seem to signal any
difference in meaning., and the speaking (ÀaÀELv -
4.17; 5.40),
teaching ( 6L6auxE:Zv 4.18; 5.28), and bold speaking
-

( xappnaL_6§iq%aL 9.27,28) are all done with the

-

authority of Jesus. The expressions could all reflect t3’9-l

meaning ’on the commission of’ /18/, a usage which could be either
secular or religious, but in any case is such a common phrase in
the general vocabulary of religion that one scarcely need claim a
specific source for it. Nevertheless it is possible that the
Rabbinic practice provides a parallel - that is to say, the
practice where Rabbi X says something ’in the name of’ Rabbi Y,
thus appealing to Rabbi Y’s authority /19/; It is also possible
that some sort of power inrush operates in the preaching because
the name of Jesus is invoked, by analogy with the healings which
we shall discuss shortly. Certainly the power in the healings
is not sharply differentiated from the power of the speaking
(see especially 4.17,18 and 19.13,20) in places where we move
almost without any break from the first to the second. Indeed
in 4.22 the healing is the sign ( TO 01ll.lELOV ) - presumahly
of the power of the message, if this linK between the two
activities is correct. However in 5028,40 it is clearly the
gospel proclamation that is in mind, despite the contiguity of
the miraculous once more, and in 9.27,28 there is only the pro-
clamation. The two kinds of activity can be coincident, but need
not be, and there are signs that it is the teaching/speaking
that is the really crucial one. Thus in 4.17,18 it is the
message that is proscribed, not the healing, and the outcome of
the confrontation in Ch.19 is that the message (19.20) prospers.
Therefore if the use of ’in the name oft in teaching/speaking
contexts is closely connected with its use in healing, and if
this means that the same sort of power is evident in both (and we
can only tentatively suggest this), nevertheless it is the

message that is crucial.

All that we have said so far assumes that in teaching contexts

’in the name of’ is an authorisation/empowering formula, but this
was long ago questioned by HeitmtLl.ler, Thus he in 4.17,18
suggests that it is the content (Inhalt) of the preaching that
bothers the authorities, who wish to stop the apostles’
talking
Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008
© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 33

about Jesus /20/o Indeed he argues that all these teaching

instances are about content, and that in 4.17,18 the objection
is not to the preaching’s basis or foundation, and also that in
9.27,28 what is objectionable is that Paul is preaching the name
of Jesus. In fact preaching the Word of the Lord and preaching
in the name of the Lord are effectively identical. The same is
true of Luke 24.47: it is not that forgiveness and repentance are
to be preached with the authority of Jesus (’in his name’), but
that forgiveness and repentance in the name of Jesus are to be
preached. ’In his name’ is thus again (part of) the content of
the preaching. Heitmtiller does however think that sometimes
this usage shades over into an authorisation, but that content is
the primary meaning. He assigns this group of instances as
similar to his Group 2 of LXX renderings of t7~J.~ including -

passages like Deut. 18.19,20,22; Jer. 14.14; 27.15; 29.23 - where

he thinks the formula refers to contento He argues that
basically ’Rabbi X said in the name of Rabbi Y’ is also about
content, and that it did not, at least originally, mean that
Rabbi X was claiming the authority of Rabbi Y, but rather that
Rabbi X was giving a decision about the meaning of Rabbi Y /21/.
He agrees that an authority meaning could easily develop from
this, but sees it as secondary. Now it cannot be claimed that
I-Ieitmtiller fully establishes this intriguing theory, but he is
not without support in recent times /22/, and it must be said
that particularly in Luke 24.47 and Acts 4.17,18 his theory makes
good exegetical sense. Perhaps we can say that he has shown
that to see ’in the name of’ as a simple authorisation formula
does not do full justice either to these Acts passages, or to
some of the LXX passages he lists in his Group 2. There are
also strong hints that there is some reference to content, to the
message about Jesus.

3..Healings in the Name of Jesus Christ (3,6,16; 4.7,10,30;

19011-20; cfo 4.12). Hull has shown that Luke, much more than
the other Synoptists, is influenced by Hellenistic magical ideas,
especially in his accounts of exorcisms and healings /23/, It is
therefore prima facie likely that when in Acts the name of Jesus
is used in healings, the power latent in the name is latched on
to, claimed, or invoked. This is immediately supported by
19.11-20 where the power that is available through Paul can flow
independently of any personal encounter, through handkerchiefs
and the like. Understandably, some wandering Jewish exorcists
decide to use this new and powerful name in their own operations,
with disastrous results because they are not authorised to do

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
34

so /24/. This is clearly a very powerful name indeed, to be

approached with caution and even awe (cf.19.17), which invalidates
previous magical practices (19.18-19). Yet it is not the
practices which are wrong but their being carried out in the
wrong name, or in the right name by the wrong people /25/. Else-
where the name of Jesus when inyoked in healing proves to be
ev ToirTW
powerful: 4010 (where probably EV means ’by it’, i.e.
TOVTW
the name, rather than ’by him’ /26/); 3.6; 4.7 (where ’power’ and
’name’ are surely to be identified); 4.30; 19.13. In 4.30 the
power that does the healing through the name of Jesus is said to
be that of God.

Now while it is true that especially in Cho19 the name appears

to be just an unusually strong and dangerous power which can be
used only by those authorised, and thus confirms Hull’s view of
Luke as particularly affected by Hellenistic magical ideas, yet
at the same time Luke’s juxtapositions seem to suggest that the
healings in the name are pointers to a more fundamental power in
.the name. Thus in Ch.3 the first healing ~V TD 6V6PUTU
Inoou XPGGTOU appears at first sight to be just‘ another magical
miracle in which there is no personal encounter on the part of
the healed person with either Christ or the gospel; it appears to
be simply a matter of the use of the right name by authorised
persons. However, later in the chapter (v.16) a more complicated
explanation is offered /27/. First, the healing took place by
faith (whose - the apostles?) in the name, and it was not simply
a matter of the right people and the right formula. Faith, even
if only a rudimentary and untheological faith, was also necessaryo
Yet on the other hand (still v.16) the name itself does it;
nevertheless this reference to the name absolutely is not
presented without content. It is preceded by an encapsulated
presentation of the gospel in the strongly heilsgeschichtlich
manner usually favoured by Luke, and this gives a strong content
to the name. It is as if to say ’You cannot have the name
working ex op ere op era to; you must have the gospel with it’
(cf. similarly 19.13,20)o It is precisely the Jesus who came,
as God’s fulfilment of the hopes of Israel, who was crucified,

was raised and vindicated, whose name has done this. The healing
by the name is thus ’gospelised’ (of course in Luke’s simple
sense), and gospelised still in terms of the name. In Ch.4,as
we have already indicated, the dispute about the healing becomes

primarily a dispute about the teaching - that is the issue; that

is what is proscribed. Healing in the name is not only accom-
panied by teaching in the name, but flows over into it, almost

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 35

becomes it. And lest we miss the point at issue, 4.12 makes it
plain that the healing points to salvation (which here must have
a comprehensive meaning, and can hardly be merely a synonym for

’healing’ /28/). Even in 19.11-20 which seems to be entirely

about magical healing techniques, practices, and authorisation,
we are finally led to something else (v,20): ’the word of the
Lord grew and prevailed mightily ’1 /29/. In the end we are
dealing with the gospel, and not just with therapeutic success.

In all three groups of instances so far discussed, we have

found not only diversity of origin and background, but also a
surprising tendency to converge on something basically to do with
the gospel, i.e. with content. In this last group, it almost
looks as if Luke bends un-evangelical uses towards a fundamentally
evangelical meaning. This leads us to the fourth group, perhaps
the crucial one.

4. The Name of Jesus Used for Jesus Himself (see especially 3.16;
5.41; 8.12; 9.15,16; 10.43; 15.26; 19.17; 21.13; 26.9). Every
student at the Bible knows that in the Jewish tradition ’the name
of Yahweh’ is an indirect way of speaking about Yahweh himself.
The name is Yahweh in his power and reality, and not just a con-
venient label. In later Judaism, of course, there was a
developed theology of the name /30/, but it is almost certainly
mistaken to suppose that to say ’the name of God’ rather than
’God’ implied the interposition of some sort of intermediary
being or hypostasis /31/. It is much more probable that what is
involved is on the one hand a reverent delicacy of speech, and
on the other a way of preserving what we should call the omni-
presence of God or perhaps his universality while speaking of him
as present or active in some specific place or situation. Thus
it is likely that when in 1 Kings 8a27-30 it is said that God’s
name will dwell in the Temple, what is meant is that God indeed

will be there, really there, but not solely there. His presence
there does not preclude his presence elsewhere, particularly in
heaven (cf vv.27,30) /32/. The name of God, therefore, can be
used as a way of avoiding placing limits on God and yet of
speaking about him in specific situations (though of course this
does not deny that there was power in the name itself /33/).
This use of ’name’ is rout, one need hardly say, restricted to the
name of God. In general, the name ’represents the thing and
shares its power’ /34/.

Such usage is found also in Acts. An interesting instance is

in 1.15 where ’names’ simply is synonymous with ’persons’, and in

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
36

relation to God we have 15.14, where ’a people for his (God’s)

name’ is clearly ’a people to belong to him’ and similarly 15.17
where ’the Gentiles who are called by my name’ means ’those who
belong to me, those who acknowledge me’. Certainly also in 2.21,
in the quotation from Joel, ~~calling on the name of the Lord&dquo;has
the same meaning /35/. Now in a few places in Acts the name of
Jesus is used in apparently the same way, and we must attempt
to determine what this means. Firstly, there is a good deal
about suff ering for the name of the Lord Jesus: 5.41; 9.16;
15.26; 21.13 (all ~nep TOU lv6vaToc ). This is not
unknown elsewhere in the NT /36/, ana it is tempting to suppose
that it is simply periphrastic way of saying ’suffer for the
a

Lord Jesus’. Indeed the RSV rendering of 15.26 simply omits the
words ’the name of’. Yet one circumstance suggests that this
will not quite do and that is that 5.41, 9.16, and 15.26 all make
it clear that ’the name of Jesus’ really refers to the activity
of propagating the gospel rather than simply adhering to it. It
is for the propagation that there is suffering. The remaining
instance, 21.13, does not quite so obviously have the same aspect,
for it is usually assumed that Paul is going to Jerusalem not
primarily to preach but to deliver the collection (to go by Paul’s
own account, Rom. 15.25-9,31; 1 Cor. 16.1-4). However, it is
important to notice that by Luke’s account Paul is not at all
concerned with the collection /37/, and indeed there is only one
unobtrusive reference to it in the whole of Acts (24.17). The
reason Luke gives for the visit to Jerusalem is ’to testify to
the gospel of the grace of God’ (20.22-4). It turns out then
that like the other three ’suffering’ instances, 21.13 is about
suffering for the propagation of the gospel. This view is
supported by the fact that elsewhere, not in connection with
suffering, ’name’ and ’gospel’ appear to be near-synonyms: 8.12;
9,15(?); 26.9. Theequivalence is clearest in 8.12, but also
carrying the name to the Gentiles (9.15), and opposing the name
(26.9) seem to presuppose that it is the message that is in view.
Indeed, the intrinsic connection between 9.15 and 9.16 gives
strong support to our contention that suffering for the name is
not just suffering for the confession of Christ, but rather
suffering for the mission, the message.

Clearly these uses of ’the name’ are closely related to some

other (’in the name of’) instances we have examined. We have
already seen that in 4.12 the name saves, and that this comes as
the upshot of healing in the name. Paul’s carrying the name
before Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel (9.15) is not

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 37

different from in the name of Jesus (9,27,28).

preaching In
10043, where is through the name of Jesus, a formal,
forgiveness
almost automatic invocation is hardly intended. The rehearsal
of the (Lukan) kerygma in the preceding verses indicates that a
statement about the gospel is being made. Authorisation may well
be so is the content of the gospel, cfo again Luke
included, but
24.47. We have already noticed that in 3.16 where ’his name’ is
used, the healing is ’gospelised’, and in 19.17 where the name of
Jesus receives acclamation, it is not merely because this is the
greatest miracle-working power of all, but because the word of the
Lord, the gospel /38/, is at stake (19.20).

Conclusion
The uses of ’name’ in relation to Jesus in the Acts of the
Apostles are thus seen to be diverse, and it is not possible to
speak of a single ’concept of the name’ in Acts /39/. The only
common tendency we have noted, least noticeable in the first,
baptismal group of passages /40/, is towards using ’name’ in
connection with the gospel. We began by asking if ’the name of
Jesus’ is one of the ways in which Luke overcomes the formal
absence of Jesus since the ascension, by seeing it as a means of
communicating Christ’s present activity /41/, or indeed as a
replacement for it, Our investigation suggests that it does
neither, and that there is in fact no single ’it’o In the
baptismal instances, God’s activity in the present time occurs
through the Spirit, not through the name. Where ’the name’,
’

without ’in’ is used, the only place where it does anything

directly is in 3.16, but even this is so strongly qualified both
by the double reference to faith, and by the fact that the
healing was actually done by the apostles ’in the name of Jesus’,
that one must conclude that what i s meant is that the name of
.Jesus in healing is particularly powerful where faith is presento 0

This does not mean that Jesus himself is somehow present in any
direct or personal way, at least if Hull is right in seeing the
main background as that of Hellenistic magico It is rather a
matter of tapping the power latent in the god or person named/42/,
by those authorised to do so (19.llff; cf.14.3).

Nevertheless it has been claimed that the true background to

the healings is the OT concept of the name of Yahweh, and that
where the name of Jesus is used in healing, he is necessarily
present: if the name is at work, Jesus is at work. Indeed,
Acts 9.34 (’Jesus Christ heals you’) has been taken as the key to
all the healings, especially the healings and exorcisms ’in the

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
38

name of Jesus Christ’, as by Bietenhard /43/. It cannot be

denied that this is a possible view, but against it stands Hull’s
impressive demonstration of the Hellenistic magical background,
especially for Luke, and also our own investigation which has
shown that the only place in Acts where the name of Jesus is used
analogously to that of Yahweh in the OT (e,g, in 1 Kings 8o27-30)
is 3.16, and that even this is firmly qualified. It seems much
more likely, therefore, that far from 9.34 being the key, it is
an anomaly, and is perhaps a shorthand way of saying that when
the Apostles heal Aeneas, they do so on the outhority of (’in the
name of’?) Jesus Christ.

Overall, then, likely that ’the name’ is not a Lukan

it is
device to bring in presently active Jesus.
a The uses are
thoroughly diverse, except for a tendency to converge on the
gospel. Now for Liike, the gospel is essentially what has
happened, the salvation-history. If Bietenhard were right,
and if 3.16 and 9.34 together did indicate that for Luke Jesus
is present precisely in the healings, then we should have an odd
result, amounting almost to a reductio and absurdum. For it is
Luke himself who seems to reduce the healings in significance
compared to the gospel. It would be strange if Jesus were
presently active in the healings, while in the gospel the
reference is to the past, to the events of the Heilsgeschichte,
or to heavenly lordship, leaving present activity to the Spirit.
It seems better, therefore, to conclude that in Acts ’name’ is
not a way of supplying the absence of Christ.

Notes
"
1. See G.Stählin, τ&ogr; Πνϵ&uacgr;μα ’&Igr;ησ&ogr;&uacgr; (Apostelgeschichte
16:7)", Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. B.Lindars
and S.S.Smalley, Cambridge 1973, pp.229-251, at pp.240-241: "for
in his name the Lord Christ is present himself just as Yahweh the
Lord is present in his name". Cf. also E.Schweizer, Jesus,
E.tr. London 1971, p.145.
2. W.Heitmüller, Im Namen Jesu (FRLANT I,2), Göttingen 1903 -
see the closing pages.

3. As well as Heitmüller, see J.M.Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the

Synoptic Tradition, London 1974, pp.17-18; J.D.G.Dunn, Baptism in
the Holy Spirit, London 1970, p.121; H.Bietenhard, &oacgr;ν&ogr;μα ",
"

TDNT V, 242-283, at 274.

4. Hellenistic Magic, pp.30-35: also Bietenhard in TDNT V, 255,
and G.F.Moore, Judaism 3 vols., Cambridge Mass. 1927-30, I p.426.
5. There is a good elucidation in Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit
Chs.V,VII.
Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008
© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 39

6. Ibid., Ch.IX and especially p.93.

7. So F.F.Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, London 1951, pp.98,228.
8. Bietenhard, TDNT V, 255; note Acts 2.21 and Joel 2.32; 1 Kings
18.24; Ps.55.16; 88.9; 145.18 and often.
9. See W.Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, London 1966, pp.78-9:
Calling on the name of Jesus is to acknowledge him as &kap a;ρ&igr;&ogr;ς .

10. As well as Heitmüller, see Hull, Hellenistic Magic, pp.17-18.

11. For a different view, Heitmüller, Part I (summary on p.127).
12. op.cit., pp.102-109; cf. also Bruce, Acts, p.187.
13. See Bietenhard, TDNT V, 275, also 268,276; and R.Schnackenburg
Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, E.Tr. Oxford 1964, p.20; G.R.
Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, London 1962,
pp.90-92, 100-103; Strack-Billerbeck Kommentar I, pp.468,590,
1054-5.
14. L.Hartman, "’Into the Name of Jesus’’’, NTS 20 (4, 1974),
432-440.
15. See Schnackenburg, Baptism, Ch.II and esp. pp.18f; also
J.D.G.Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London 1977,
pp.155-6, and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p.97. 1 Cor.1.13,15 are
the only other NT instances of ϵ&iacgr;&sfgr; τ&ogr; &oacgr;ν&ogr;μα , apart from
Matt.28.19.
16. Baptism in the Holy Spirit, passim but especially Ch.IX.
17. I have assumed that this is an anomaly, perhaps due to Luke’s
sources, or to other (Pauline?) ways of formulating the relation-
ship of the Spirit to Jesus. G.Stählin however, in "τ&ogr; Πνϵ&uacgr;μα
’&Igr;ησ&ogr;&uacgr; (Apostelgeschichte 16:7)" regards it on the contrary
as central and determinative. I hope to be able to argue my
case about this verse elsewhere.
18. Cf. Est.2.22; 1 Sam.25.9; Jer.29.5 - and see Bietenhard,
TDNT V, 259f. Such a meaning is probably to be found in Luke
9.48; 13.35; 19.38; 21.8.
19. See Bietenhard, TDNT V, 268; B.Gerhardsson, Memory and Manu-
, Uppsala 1961, pp.131 n.1, 223. See for example b.San.51b.
script
20. Im Namen Jesu, pp.61-2.
21. op.cit., pp.38-40.
22. See E.Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, E.Tr. Oxford 1971;
Bietenhard, TDNT V 273-4.
23. Hellenistic Magic, Ch.VI.
24, Cf. Hull, op.cit., pp.72, 155 n.49, for the contrast with a
much more permissive attitude in Mark 9.38-9 and (NB!) Luke
9.49-50.
25. Luke is not altogether consistent; even Luke 10.17 may
represent unauthorised exorcism that is nonetheless successful.
26. I take the two &eacgr;ν phrases as belonging together, τ&ogr;&uacgr;τω
being resumptive of the whole of the first (’in/by the name of

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
40

Jesus Christ of Nazareth...’). If one argued that τ&ogr;&uacgr;τω

must refer to the nearest antecedent noun, this would lead us
not to Jesus but to God. In both parts of the verse, therefore,
the man is healed by the name of Jesus.
27. On the difficulties of this verse see the critical comments
by Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts, Oxford 1965, pp.144-6. He
concludes that a solution must be found elsewhere than in terms
of mistranslation. It may well be, though finally undemons-
trable, that we have here an instance of redaction of sources,
even written sources, as in many places in Acts.

28. Cf. Haenchen, Acts, p.217.

29. λ&oacgr;&gam a;&ogr;&sfgr; τ&ogr;&uacgr; &kap a;υρ&iacgr;&ogr;υ
in Acts seems always to refer to the
gospel (in Luke’s simple terms) of man’s salvation by Christ.
It is preached, and taught: see 8.25; 12.24 v1
);
(? 13.44,48,49;
15.35,36; 16.32; 19.10. In most there is no connection with
miracle (though cf. perhaps 8.25; 12.24; 16.32). This need not
of course exclude proclaiming Jesus as the great healer, but
that is not the primary reference. See also recently G.N.
Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, Cambridge
1974, pp.28-9, and F.Bovon, "L’importance des mediations dans le
projet théologique
de Luc", NTS 21 (1,1974), 23-39 at 35-7: the
’word’ is for Luke ’the most perceptible divine reality in the
present time’.
30. See J.Daniélou,
The Theology of Jewish Christianity
, E.Tr.
London 1964, pp.147-163; Moore, Judaism II, p.101; Heitmüller,
Im Namen Jesu, Part 2, Ch.1; Bietenhard, TDNT V, 252-270 - among
many.
31. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, London 1977,
pp.212-233, has powerfully repudiated the notion that later
Judaism saw God as remote, and inaccessible except through inter-
mediaries.
32. Cf. Bietenhard, TDNT V, 256-8.
33. See n.4 above.
34. Hull, Hellenistic Magic, p.112. For the connection between
name and character inHellenistic Jewish setting, see Philo, a

De .
Nom 63-80.
Mut There are also numerous non-Lukan NT in-
stances, e.g. Matt.12.21; Jn 12.28; 17.6,26; Rom.2.24; 9.17;
10.13; 15.9 (referring to God); and 1 Cor.1.2; 1 Pet.4.14,16;
1 Jn 3.23; 5.13 (referring to Jesus).
35. See above on Acts 22.16, and n.8; also Acts 9.14,21; Luke
11.2 (and par.).
36. See Matt.10.22; Matt.24.9/ Mk 13.13/ Luke 21.17; Luke 21.12;
Jn 15.21; Rev.2.3. Compare Matt.24.18 with Mk 13.9.
37. Dunn, Unity and Diversity, pp.256-7, argues plausibly that
Luke suppresses mention of the collection because in the event

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 41

the Jerusalem church refused it.

38. Haenchen, Acts, p.567, gives the meaning as ’Christianity’.
See also n.29 above.
39. For this see, for example, H.Conzelmann, The Theology of St.
Luke, E.Tr., London 1960, p.184.
40. We could hold this tendency to be without exception, if we
were adopt the view of G.Delling, Die Zueignung des Heils in
to
der Taufe, Berlin 1961, that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
in effect admits the person to the blessings of the gospel and of
salvation, hence the title of the book. I regret that I have not
had access to this work, but for a brief account see Hartman,
"’Into the Name of Jesus’", especially 433f. Hartman considers
that Delling derives too much from ar essentially neutral
expression, see also 439.
41. See n.1 above; also Conzelmann, Luke, p.178, and Haenchen,
Acts, p.92. Conzelmann agrees that ’name’ does not constitute
a personal presence of Christ.

42. Cf. Hull, Hellenistic Magic, pp.109-114.

43. TDNT V, 277.

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Esther Miquel on January 21, 2008

© 1979 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.