Jesus' Baptism in the name of Jesus

One of the strangest passages in the New Testament is found in Luke, chapter the twelfth:

⁴⁹ “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! ⁵⁰ But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! (Luke 12:49-50) 

These verses seem to appear out of any context. There is nothing immediately before v. 49 that serves as an apparent segue. Nor do these two verses, in any obvious way, elaborate on what we read previously. Some to connect v. 49 with  the next horrifying passage:

⁵¹ Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. ⁵² From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. ⁵³ They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:51-53)

But that doesn’t smell right. V. 49 speaks of something Jesus wishes (without coveting, we can safely assume!) happened, while the scary passage beginning in v. 51 does not describe something Jesus wished for, but rather, if anything, something he will regret.

The more parsimonious view of v. 49 is that Jesus longed for the effect of his ministry to occur faster than it had been ordained. With fire symbolizing the Spirit, Jesus was anticipating the paradigm shift that would occur later, at Pentecost. The fact that this would not occur until after the cross may be the reason for the overall tone of ennui.

V. 50 is even more peculiar. The baptism Jesus must undergo almost certainly refers, at some level, to his death. We see this same language elsewhere, when the apostles James and John make their ill-advised request for prime seating in eternity:

³⁷ They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” ³⁸ “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”(Mark 10:37-38)

But why, if it is not merely a metaphor, does Jesus have to be baptized again? Well, we know that he has undergone the baptism of John, a baptism of repentance. And we know that this is an inferior baptism  as Paul teaches:

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:3-4)

This better baptism that Paul performs of is a baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus. The incarnate Jesus would be desirous of this better baptism in his own name, but it required his death, hence the equating of baptism and death. 

So in some sense Jesus was the first person baptized with the baptism of the New Covenant, baptized in his own name.

Or maybe that is  just the latest in string of heresies I've committed. It's hard to tell these days, the bar of  heresy has never been lower among evangelicals. Its okay, it's not like we are supposed to be united.