In My Name

Something needs to be said about the name of Jesus Christ. Something needs to be decided, to be settled. We turn our attention to Luke 9:46-56. Many Christians pray fervently, ending a hope, a request, a proclamation with the phrase 'in Jesus name'. Some say 'in the name of the Lord', while others say 'in the name of the only begotten son of God'.

In verses 46 through 48, Jesus perceived the errant pride in the hearts of his disciples. So, he took a child and told them that to get Jesus they had to get the smallest, humblest, most insignificant and overlooked of people – children. We've all heard the sermons – childlike humility, etc. But, the thing I want you to see here is just how we are supposed to receive that small child. “In my name.”

But, what does it really mean to place oneself under the name of Jesus Christ? What is it we're not getting about the name? First of all, the name of Jesus is not an incantation. There is no power or effect in such practice. Second of all, Jesus' name is bigger than you let on. Christ has many names, and all must be included 'in the name'.

What are the names of Jesus, then, and how, exactly, do we place ourselves under those names as a whole? Let me present a short list of the names of Jesus Christ. Just to list a few, they are “the truth”, “the life”, “the way”, “the son of God”.

Greatness may be seen in that which is the least esteemed, but that is apparently how it all works. When we receive Jesus, we take him as the ambassador of the one who sent him: his Father. When we receive the little child, we take that humble child as the ambassador of the greatest among us. The one who sends the message, the messenger and the one to whom the message is sent are all rolled up as one, making it effectively impossible to pick and choose.

If you want God, you cannot have him without Jesus. If you want to be great in heaven, you cannot have it without humility in this earthly life. These matters are all one and the same.

So, we want to get Jesus and we decide to do so by receiving the child in Jesus' name. This is the question I pose: do we receive the child in the name of truth, in the name of life, as an extension of the way, or as an ambassador of the son of God – and wouldn't any such spirit within us place us in the stead of Jesus? It is my opinion that what we should get about “in my name” is that it is not simply a sound or designation. Whatever we do, or say, or think, or pray “in the name”, we do so in the embassage of the son of God.

Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary – Ambassage:

embassy, a message of a public nature brought by ambassadors. The word also sometimes includes the ambassadors themselves. ( Luke 14:32 )

Are there limitations on the name? Does it fall solely under the purvue of one group or the other? The disciple John asked a follow-up question to clarify what Jesus meant by 'in the name'. In verse 49, John confessed that he and others of the disciples had forbidden a man who had cast out devils in Jesus' name – simply because he wasn't one of the disciples.

Jesus replied in verse 50, “Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” According to the son of God, “in my name” is not restricted to any one fraternity, club, church or faith. If a Muslim or a confessed Atheist did or said something in the name of Jesus, it would be just as acceptable as the deeds and words of a born-again Christian.

One is either for or against. If the spirit proves that you are for Jesus, you are for Jesus. To do or say or think anything in the name of Jesus is to do so as Jesus himself would do, say and think. To employ the name of Jesus, or Christ, or truth, or life, etc – one must necessarily be 'in' that spirit. As an argument, if Jesus is the truth, then the Holy Spirit of Truth is the spirit of Jesus.

As always, when I use the word spirit, what I really mean is 'mind'. Are you in the mindset of Jesus? Does the Holy Spirit of Truth guide and assist your thoughts and decisions?

Let us look at what it means to not be “in my name”. In verses 51 through 56, we find the disciples John and James not to be in the mindset of Jesus. Jesus had set his face toward Jerusalem. He was determined to confront the religious authority of his culture. That was trouble that one town wanted no part of. When they would not receive him, his two disciples stepped up.

In defense of their master, they were prepared to go all postal on the town – Elias style. They asked Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven in response. I am not here to say they had the prerequisite experience in calling fire down. While it may be within the realm of possibility that the apostles performed miracles other than healing, I think the attitude of these two falls more within the parameters of excitement. They were more than willing to try on some power from on high. Exorcisms, reanimations, water-walking, and transfigurations were all very intoxicating, after all.

But, wielding such power is not the definition of “in my name”, and Jesus told them so. He said this in verse 55, “ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” 'Manner of spirit' is an expression equal to 'mindset'. If they were not in Jesus spirit or name, whose name had they placed themselves under?

Jesus explained that he had not come to destroy men's lives, so, who had come to do such a thing?

I offer this from John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.”

I offer this from John 10:10, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly.”

In whose name does the Muslim place himself? Is it the name of one who would save men's lives, to offer a more abundant life? If that was the case then Muslims would be followers of Christ. Instead, they place themselves under the name of Mohamed.

Does the atheist give or save in the embassage of Christ? If that was the case then atheists would be followers of Christ. Instead, they take to themselves only in their own name.

Does the modern day Christian actually place himself in the embassage of Christ when they pray, or communicate, or act? As long as a Christian does no more than use the name as an incantation they know not what manner of spirit they are of.