1. Introduction

The widespread Georgian habit of opening a homily with “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a relatively new phenomenon. It is not attested in the original Greek homiletic texts of the Fathers, nor in older Georgian preaching practice, nor (in the same way) in medieval Slavic or Russian usage. It appears to be a late development that blends a sacramental formula into the didactic act of preaching — a conflation that carries significant theological implications.

This study will argue that:

The Trinitarian formula is apostolic and sacramental in origin.

Its grammar and theological function differ across liturgical languages.

It properly belongs to the domain of sacrament and blessing, not instruction.

The patristic and early Georgian preaching tradition did not begin sermons with it.

The modern Georgian usage emerged in the late 20th century and, though well-intentioned, risks altering the perceived nature of preaching.

2. Biblical and Patristic Foundations

The Trinitarian formula originates in Christ’s command in Matthew 28:19:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The singular “name” (ὄνομα) signifies the unity of divine being. In early Christianity, this formula defined baptism, not proclamation.

The Didache (c. 100 CE, ch. 7) and Justin Martyr (Apologia I, 61) both testify that baptism was performed “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The Cappadocian Fathers later defended the full equality of the three persons through this same wording.

Hence, the formula is originally sacramental and ontological, marking entry into divine communion rather than the act of explanation or exhortation.

3. Grammar and Theological Semantics

Each liturgical language encodes the same theological act through distinct grammatical cases.

In Georgian, სახელითა is instrumental, not directional. It conveys “by means of the Name” rather than “into the Name.” Theologically, it expresses divine action operating through the Name, not a human approach toward it. This makes it perfectly suited for sacramental formulas, where God acts by His Name — but less natural for homiletic speech, which is human interpretation about that action.

4. Domain of Use: Sacrament vs. Instruction

Throughout Scripture and patristic tradition, the Trinitarian naming marks actions where God Himself acts — baptism, blessing, exorcism, consecration — never the preacher’s interpretive speech.

Acts 3:6: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk.”

Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto 1: “The Name itself sanctifies; we do not lend it our power.”

Thus, “in the name” denotes divine agency, not rhetorical authority. The early Church rigorously distinguished between μυστήριον (mystērion, sacrament) and διδαχή (didachē, teaching). The former is performative; the latter is explanatory.

5. How the Fathers Begin Their Homilies

In the Greek corpus of John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Jerusalem, homilies begin not with “In the name…” but with addresses or expositions:

“Beloved brethren…”; “Today we hear…”; “Let us reflect upon…”

The reason is liturgical. The preacher stands already within the blessed space of the Liturgy. The invocation of the Trinity has occurred; it need not be repeated. When these homilies were later copied, scribes began at the first meaningful sentence, not the routine opening blessing.

In medieval Latin sermons, however, many manuscripts add “In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.” as the first line. In the Slavic world, especially in Russia, editors did likewise (“Во имя Отца…”). These insertions reflect local scribal custom, not patristic original practice: the sacramental formula was editorially grafted onto the homily.

6. The Georgian Case

Old Georgian translations of liturgical books correctly use “სახელითა მამისათა და ძისათა და სულისა წმიდისათა” in sacramental and invocational contexts — baptism, Eucharist, blessings — never as the written beginning of a homily. Nineteenth-century Georgian sermons (e.g., Bishop Gabriel Kikodze) begin simply: “ძმანო ქრისტიანენო…” (“Brothers in Christ”), not with the Trinitarian invocation.

In contrast, contemporary Georgian preaching, especially from the late 20th century onward, routinely begins with this formula. The best-known example is Patriarch Ilia II, whose homilies invariably open:

“სახელითა მამისათა და ძისათა და სულისა წმიდისათა! ჩვენთან არს ღმერთი!”

This shows that the practice is modern, probably adopted post-1977, and unique among Christian traditions. It projects solemnity but also subtly re-sacramentalizes the sermon itself.

7. Pastoral Qualification

It must be stated clearly that when Georgian bishops and priests today begin their sermons with the words “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” they do not consciously claim prophetic or infallible authority for what follows. In practice, most intend only to begin reverently, to “place the sermon under God,” or to seek His blessing for their words. The formula is inherited and familiar, not an assertion of personal divine mandate.

It would therefore be unjust to accuse clergy who use this form of deliberate self-deification or authoritarian intent. They are acting out of reverence and habit, not ideology.

However, theology is not governed by intention alone. Liturgical language has objective performative power. When the preacher uses the same formula that introduces baptism and blessing, the hearer may unconsciously perceive the ensuing sermon as possessing sacramental or unchallengeable authority. Over time, such repetition can train the faithful to receive interpretive speech as consecrated truth rather than accountable teaching.

Thus, the risk is structural, not moral: good intentions can still reinforce a model of preaching that conflates divine action with human exposition and makes theological dialogue more difficult. The Church must therefore examine the practice not as individual error but as a question of ecclesiological coherence.

8. Theological Consequences

By shifting the sacramental formula into the rhetorical sphere, Georgian preaching:

Blurs the ontological line between God’s act (mystērion) and human teaching (didachē).

Elevates the preacher’s word by implicit association with divine performativity.

Discourages critical engagement and theological conversation among the faithful.

Transforms interpretation into proclamation, making exposition sound like revelation.

Such effects arise not from malice but from linguistic habit. Yet in the long term they can shape ecclesial culture toward clerical sacralization and weaken the Church’s capacity for theological self-reflection.

9. Conclusion

The formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is apostolic, ancient, and indispensable — within its proper domain. It belongs to the moments when God acts: baptism, blessing, Eucharist. The Fathers never used it as the opening of their homilies. Neither did early Georgian preachers. Its recent transfer into the sphere of preaching, while intended as reverence, unintentionally risks blurring the distinction between sacrament and exposition.

Recognizing this is not to condemn clergy but to invite theological clarity. If the Church restores the older distinction — blessing for sacrament, address for preaching — it will preserve both the sanctity of divine action and the freedom of human interpretation. True reverence for the Name of God includes the courage to discern where His action ends and our explanation begins.