Biblical Misunderstandings
"In Jesus' Name"
Biblical Misunderstandings
"In Jesus' Name"
Preface
In March of 2013, as I walked into church one morning, I heard, "How would you like to stop saying, 'In Jesus' name'?"
Apart from the content of the message, which was immediately intimidating for me, there was the fact that I didn't normally or regularly "hear" from God like this. True, just twenty metres away from this spot I had heard God repeat Their call on my life 3 months earlier, which was a repeat of the same call I had clearly heard just over 3 years before that. I was smart enough 30 years after rejecting the original call to agree to both of those 'moments', but this request? I wasn't so sure.
In my mind I looked around to see who I was talking to, but I saw nothing. No one. I had a terrible feeling that if I complied the sky or something similar might fall on me.
"Ah...are you sure?" after a pause.
As usual, there was no response, so I carefully started to comply. The idea wasn't completely foreign to me because I knew those three words, and variations on them, had become a type of mantra, and any type of mantra did not go well with what I knew about Jesus.
The man we know as Jesus was a Jewish child, born to (raised by) Jewish parents who lived in Israel. Well, His mother was Jewish, while His Father was God, which gave Him naming rights.
And so the angel Gabriel told Mary (Mariam) that the boy should be called Jesus. (Luke 1:31) Or did he?
Jesus is not a Jewish name, it's an English word derived from the Greek word 'Iesous', but the Son of God wasn't Greek, either. It is generally regarded that His name would have been Yeshua, which is Hebrew meaning 'Yahweh saves' or perhaps 'He saves', and the English name Joshua is closely related.
Paul gives an excellent description of Jesus' work on Earth in Philippians 2:5-11
"5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,3 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. " (ESV)
The first part, up to and including the bold type, is literally true.
The second part, after the bold type, has not yet literally come to pass. It is governed by the verb 'should' which is not the same as the word 'will' or 'must'. I verified this a number of times several years ago by reading this verse several times in a room full of Christians (who were, of course, 'on the earth') and no one bowed, and no one even called out that Jesus is Lord.
Even verse 9 is misunderstood in some parts of the Spanish-speaking world where the name 'Jesus' - pronounced 'hay-soos', where the 'oos' is pronounced the same as in 'loose' - is a common name for boys. Because it is 'higher' than any other name?
But the figurative part of verses 9-11 cannot be denied: a 'name' is more than just what we call someone.
If we say that "John has a good name" or "Peter doesn't have a good name", what are we talking about?
Does that mean that anyone called 'John' is blessed with a name that is intrinsically better than the name 'Peter'?
No. That is a figure of speech used all over the world to mean that a particular person we know called 'John' has a good reputation, while the person we know called 'Peter' does not have a good reputation. We find this figure of speech used in Scripture, also.
In Genesis 11:4, the people involved in planning the tower of Babel said,
4 ... “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” (ESV) Emphasis added.
In Genesis 12:2 God spoke to Abraham and, among other things said:
"And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing."
These are figures of speech which represent the idea of raising someone's reputation.
When the Angel of the Lord (the Old Testament form of Jesus presenting before mankind) appeared to Moses for the first time, Moses had a good question:
"...when I come to the Israelites and say to them, The God (Elohim) of your fathers has sent me to you, and they say to me, What is His name? What shall I say to them?
"And God (Elohim) said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM; and He said, You shall say this to the Israelites, I AM has sent me to you." Exodus 3:13-14 (AMP)
As Dr (Robert) Young points out in his commentary, this name is incomprehensible. As with Jacob before (Genesis 32) and Manoah later (Judges 13) the Angel of the Lord declines to give His name. However, His answer to Manoah is telling in that He says, "Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?" Judges 13:18. (AMP)
(That idea was carried forward into prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 - "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor..." (AMP))
In the very next sentence the Angel of the Lord gives a description of God for Moses to pass on to the people.
"God (Elohim) said also to Moses, This shall you say to the Israelites, The Lord (Yahweh) the God (Elohim) of your fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has sent me to you! This is My name forever, and by this name I am to be remembered to all generations." Exodus 3:13-15 (AMP - non-italicised Hebrew words have been added for clarification.)
This description is as much figurative as it is literal.
"Say this to the Israelites: The Yahweh Elohim (LORD God) of your fathers, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has sent me (Moses) to you. This is My name (it's actually a description) forever, and by this name (a description of highly regarded patriarchs who had connected with God previously) I am to be remembered to all generations" (until Messiah should come).
Even the Hebrew word for God - Elohim - has much more meaning attached, for Hebrew speakers or listeners, than we generally associate with the word 'God'. For a start, it's a plural noun, which fits right in with our New Testament understanding of God to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It's also the word used for 'God' in the Creation account. Nonetheless, this description of who God was to their forefathers was to become the way that the Israelites recognise God in the future, in effect a 'virtual' name.
This unusual usage of the word 'name' is again highlighted in Exodus 6:2-3.
"And God (Elohim) said to Moses, I am the Lord (Yahweh).
"I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai (God Almighty) but by My name the Lord (Yahweh) I did not make Myself known to them."
Although it's generally the name Yahweh which appears in the Genesis narrative (162 times), the name El Shaddai does appear 6 times - spoken by God to Abraham once (17:1), in a blessing from Isaac to Jacob (28:3), and spoken by God to Jacob once (35:11). For the last three times the words 'El Shaddai' are spoken by Jacob.
Deuteronomy 12:5 "But you shall seek the place which the Lord your God shall choose...to put His name and make His dwelling place..."
There is a figure of speech explaining another figure of speech: the place where God will "put His name" is going to be His dwelling place. Except that God does not 'dwell' in a place, or as Solomon later expressed it:
"But will God indeed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, the heaven and Heaven of heavens cannot contain You; how much less this house that I have built?" 1 Kings 8:27
That was a rhetorical question which was answered in the New Covenant.
"For we are the temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them and will walk in them, and I will be their God and they will be My people." 2 Corinthians 6:16
While that was an Old Covenant promise Paul declares that it applies to all believers now. Solomon had no idea that the Messiah would usher His followers into a personal relationship with the Godhead, something that the Israelites had rejected at Sinai.
There are other usages, too, such as "for My name," "to My name" and 'to make for Yourself a beautiful name" which show again that in the Old Testament the word 'name' means something quite different to the personal identifier we use for an individual, be they God or man.
Right from the beginning the word 'name' is used to cover much more than just the word we use to identify a person. The concept of 'name', especially as it refers to 'God', includes a description of what That person does or has done, covering Their acts as well as Their role, and how They relate to other people.
The word 'name' when applied to God or by God about Themselves is generally not to be taken or understood literally.
In other words, the word 'name' when applied by God to Themselves is used as a figure of speech, rather than describing the word or words to be used to address Them.
When Moses spoke to Pharaoh in God's name (see, for example, Exodus 9:13-19) God would first tell him what to say. Here is the crux of these verses, verse 16.
"But for this very purpose have I let you live, that I might show you My power, and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth." (AMP) Which name was that? 'My reputation' is what God is actually talking about.
There is another very interesting use of the word 'name' in Exodus 23:20ff. God is instructing Moses:
"Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you on the way... v20
"Give heed to Him, listen to His voice...for My name is in Him." v21
God was, of course, talking about the one who is called elsewhere the 'Angel of the Lord', who is none other than the Son of God in the New Testament. In this case, "for My name is in Him" is a figure of speech declaring that the Angel of the Lord works as one with the Father, doing whatever the Father would do in this situation.
At the end of Numbers 6 is the well-known blessing which the Lord asked Moses to pass on to Aaron and his sons:
"The Lord bless you and keep you; v24
"The Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. v25
"The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace." v26
"And they shall put My name upon the Israelites, and I will bless them." v27
How would Aaron and his sons put the Lord's name upon the Israelites?
By speaking the things in verses 24-26, and by teaching the Israelites that these things really were the face, the heart and the nature of God the Lord.
As part of the law given to Moses for the Israelites to live by there is what we call the third commandment, as given in Exodus 20:7.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain..." (ESV)
In other words we are not meant to use God's name frivolously or as an exclamation. In the West people regularly say, "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Almighty" as a swear word when something goes wrong. In Africa I continually hear Christians, especially, say "O God" or "O my God" when something goes wrong or something surprises them. Using the common abbreviation OMG is no different.
Those examples are exactly what the third commandment is designed to stop. Why? Is God offended?
Not at all. It's all for our protection, for our benefit.
When we use the word 'God' or sometimes 'God almighty' or 'Jesus Christ' wrongly in that way, we are showing the enemy that we have no respect for the most important Persons, the most important power in all of creation (the universe). See Hebrews 1:3.
Is it any wonder, then, that many people find that when they go to command something 'in Jesus' name' that nothing happens? Authority works when we respect the Source of that authority.
In three locations in East Africa I asked why they were using God's name in vain like that. I was amazed to hear the same response in two different but adjacent countries: "Our teachers at school told us to say that when something went wrong."
In a similar way I was astounded to hear a Christian pastor say several times in our car as we travelled through an East African country one day, "Mashallah," which is an Arabic exclamation of approval for their god, Allah, who is not the God of the Old or New Testaments. (See 1 John 2:23). There are other ways to be inclusive, but Exodus 23:13 has this to say:
"In all I have said to you take heed; do not mention the name of other gods; do not let such speech be heard from your mouth." (AMP)
Is God afraid of losing image or reputation, or popularity against false gods or idols?
I don't think so. Again, it's for our protection against losing ground to the enemy.
Here is a quick thought that God placed within me many years ago. Idolatry is presenting a false image of God, and that can come through teaching and actions that don't match up to what Jesus described and taught. For example, the idea that men are 'higher' than women in the plan of God and get to 'rule' over them. (To understand the error in that idea, see EQUALITY Part 14 and Part 15 here.)
"For the Lord has chosen him (the Levite) out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the Lord..."
"And if a Levite comes from any of your towns...to the place the Lord will choose;
"Then he may minister in the name of the Lord his God like all his brethren..." Deuteronomy 18:5-7 (AMP - Bold text added for emphasis.)
What does it mean to "minister in the name of the Lord?"
It means to follow all of the instructions that God had given through Moses for all the Levitical duties. These included acting as priests, providing music, helping with sacrifices and serving in other ways in the tabernacle and later, the temple worship. Whatever they did was to have the same appearance and effect as if it was God Themselves performing the ministry.
There was even an instruction for prophets, in Deuteronomy 18.
"I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brethren, and will put My words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I command him. v18
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or prove true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." v22 (AMP - Bold text added for emphasis.)
To "speak in the name of the Lord" is a figure of speech, meaning, "to speak something as God would speak it, as a message coming from God." In the days of the prophets they would frequently begin, "Thus saith the Lord," or to put it in modern language, "This is what God is saying to you." Since God speaks with us "as a man speaks with his friend" there is no need to use King James English or put a religious structure to the words. In other words, a prophet today will use simple language like we use when talking with our friends.
That last part, "you shall not be afraid of him" is just a figure of speech meaning, "you need have no respect or regard for him as a prophet who speaks in My name, if what he says does not come to pass."
If there is any doubt about what 'the name' of any part of the Godhead refers to we need look no further than God's near encounter with Moses on Mt Sinai.
But before we cover that here is another intriguing usage of the word 'name'.
In Exodus 33:16 Moses asks God for a sign that the Israelites have found favour in His sight, and that He will go with them.
"And the Lord said to Moses, I will do this thing also that you have asked, for you have found favor in My sight, and I know you by name."
What? Wouldn't God know everyone's name?
There's a difference here. God doesn't just know Moses by sight, from seeing him at a distance, but because Moses has a personal relationship with God through interacting with Him, God 'knows him by name'. Here is yet another special figure of speech, another usage of the word 'name'.
Moses then takes advantage of this special connection:
"And Moses said, I beseech You, show me Your glory.
"And God said, I will make all My goodness pass before you, And I will proclaim My name, The LORD (Yahweh), before you; for I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy to whom I will show mercy." Exodus 33:18-19
Here God has actually named the name that He would proclaim, Yahweh, so there must be more to proclaiming His name than just saying it.
While I have used the Amplified Bible translation so far, I want to now move to a more literal translation, as found in the ISA3. This is Exodus 34:5-7a.
"Then Yahweh descended in a cloud, and stationed Himself with him there, and proclaimed the name of Yahweh.
"Now Yahweh passed by before his face and proclaimed: Yahweh, Yahweh, El, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant with kindness and truth.
"preserving kindness to thousands, bearing with depravity, transgression and sin..."
(Note that in verse 7a above the words "bearing with" are generally recorded as "forgiving" in other translations.)
Well! The 'name' that God wants proclaimed is not so much 'Yahweh' but the fact that 'Yahweh' means that God is compassionate and gracious (freely giving to those who haven't earned it), slow to anger and overflowing with kindness and truth, continuing that kindness to multitudes while forgiving their evil wickedness, law-breaking and wrong-doing.
That's some special 'name' - that is, in fact, a description of what God is like, and a description of how God wants to be known. Unfortunately, that is not how many see God. Even some Christians have a habit of describing God as a God of anger, judgment and punishment.
I deliberately left out the remainder of verse 7 because the second part is an antithetical figure of speech (saying the opposite of what is really the case), while the third part has been superseded. Some do not realise this, but because it affects God's 'name' we will examine it.
"...but who will by no means clear the guilty..." Exodus 34:7b
Adam and Eve were guilty, and were not contrite, would not confess, and showed no signs of repentance, but they were "cleared" as shown by the shedding of blood of two animals, slain by the same God who was speaking these words to Moses.
Abraham was guilty, too.
Twice he sold his wife into sex slavery to foreign rulers because he (needlessly) feared for his life, and had sex with her maid to hopefully produce the son of promise. Some time after the first offence he was declared right with God because he believed God, even though his subsequent actions again showed a very shaky belief system.
Because he twice sold the mother-to-be of the promised heir into sex slavery (Genesis 12 and Genesis 20), without confession, contrition or repentance, chapter 22 begins with the words, "After these things God tested Abraham." He was never meant to sacrifice Isaac, but his own unbelief system instead, which had resulted in seriously endangering God's promise via his wife. Again, God "cleared" the guilty-but-unrepentant Abraham and provided the symbolic, atoning blood-sacrifice for him on Mt Moriah as well.
Just as God did again when He sent His own Son as the God-provided blood sacrifice, a perfect offering to "clear" the sins of all the world, again to a guilty-but-unrepentant world, at Golgotha.
The third part of verse 7 says:
"...visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children and the childrens' children, to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7c. That same idea can be found in Exodus 20:5.
The implication is that God is going to bring unpleasant circumstances into the lives of the descendants of people who do the wrong thing. Some people talk about generational sins or generational curses, where the father is an alcoholic and the son follows, as do the grandson and great grandson. (Another common problem area is sexual assault, where women who never resolve the assault which occurred to them have a daughter or son who is, in turn, assaulted.)
In this case we have someone grappling with sin, an unresolved issue that leads them into addiction. God certainly doesn't lead anyone into sin, or even testing, the awkward circumstances that beset us where things go wrong. Things like sickness, accident, pain, loss, destruction and death come from the evil one, the thief, according to Jesus (John 10:10). The section on Dealing With Problems shows how to break these patterns and can be accessed here.
James is adamant that God does not test us (see James 1:13-15 where the same Greek word, peirazo, is normally translated as 'tempt' but can also be translated as 'test', as in a test to destruction).
In reality the wrong idea that God might afflict the descendants of evil-doers with harm or more evil is reversed in Ezekiel 18:1-4.
"What do you mean by using this proverb...The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge? v2
"As I live, says the Lord God, you shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. v3
"Behold, all souls are mine...the soul that sins, it shall die." v4a,c,
There is more clarification in verse 20:
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."
And again in verse 23:
"Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? says the Lord, and not rather that he should turn from his evil way?"
There is no such thing in force today, either.
What is in force is an environmental/spiritual issue. Where a parent has not dealt with or resolved a besetting problem, that results in behaviour which sets the environment for the child to adopt similar practices.
Since there is a malevolent spirit behind every bad activity or practice, whether it is lust or anger or greed or whatever, once that spirit is disabled and removed using the same non-violent, non-invasive methods that Jesus used, people are set free.
In any case there are two factors which rule against the existence of generational curses, or any on-going curse for that matter.
"The causeless curse shall not alight." Proverbs 26:2
In other words, a curse cannot settle on you unless you have given it good reason to do so. Many people have done exactly that, by not dealing with or resolving issues and disputes which have arisen. Once again, we have found an extremely simple method to remove things like this, which is covered in Dealing With Problems, here.
There were blessings and curses under the Old Covenant, found in Deuteronomy 28. If you do the right thing, God will bless you; if you do the wrong thing a curse will come upon you because sin gives the enemy access to our lives.
While we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that 'wrong-doing leads to a curse coming upon you' effect still is in place. That's why Jesus said to the man he had healed at the pool of Bethesda, "See, you are well. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." John 5:14. (While that took place, technically, under the Old Covenant, incidents in the New Covenant, like the unexpected fatal results for Ananias and Saphira of lying before God, demonstrate that the principle still applies.)
However, Galatians 3:13 clearly dispels any idea that God is now connected with any curse-effect, whether under the Old or New Covenants.
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."
Note A: Parental behaviour does, indeed, have serious effects on children, but those are never a punishment from God. It is well-known that a mother taking alcohol or drugs while pregnant can lead to fetal abnormalities. Harsh discipline or lack of affection for children is often a generational issue, but that is environmental or demonic, rather than God-induced.
In The Equality of Men and Women (see Parts 10 to 15 here) we show how the negative results of Adam and Eve's mistakes in the Garden were not a punishment from God, but the natural consequences that followed on because they had assigned their allegiance to the enemy.
It's easy to get the idea that God is a vengeful, wrathful God from reading the Old Testament. Some of the reason for this is that, apart from the appearance of the 'serpent' in Genesis 3, there is no mention of the adversary until 1 Chronicles 21:1 (Hebrew = satan in this instance, as a name) and Job 1:6 (Hebrew = hassatan in this instance, as a description governed by the use of the definite article, where Hebrew 'ha' = the English word 'the'.).
In 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read:
"Satan (an adversary) stood up against Israel, and stirred up David to number Israel." (AMP)
There is a matching passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 which covers the very same incident. However, having been recorded, at least orally at the time that the events occurred, perhaps 400 years before 1 Chronicles was written, it reads like this:
"Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them saying, Go, number Israel and Judah."
There are a number of problems with this earlier version of the same event.
If God had asked David to take a census, he would be lawfully entitled to do so.
To lawfully complete the census David would have had to receive a half shekel tax for every male counted over the age of twenty. However, Moses completed two censuses of Israel at God's direction and seemingly without collecting the half shekel tax.
God does not ask anyone to do something that is wrong, and certainly not something that has a serious penalty attached. (When God 'tested' Abraham - Genesis 22 - there was no penalty attached, and the test was stopped before any harm was done.)
At some stage between approximately 900BC (2 Samuel) and 450BC (1 Chronicles 24) the religious leaders, the prophets or perhaps the scribes became aware that a malevolent entity known as 'the adversary' was responsible for evil, both as temptation and as testing. Isaiah and Ezekiel, written in the intervening period, contain passages which prophetically link the adversary (also called the devil in the New Testament) with an earthly ruler and a heavenly prince or archangel. For more details see Know Your Enemy here.
However, prior to these times everything that happened, both good and bad, was ascribed to God.
While the Old Testament regularly suggests or ascribes death as a punishment from God, the New Testament places responsibility for death in the hands of the enemy. Was there a shift in responsibility for death between God and the adversary somewhere in the past?
No, of course not.
Jesus said, “The thief comes to kill, steal and destroy, but I have come to bring life.” John 10:10.
Paul put it this way: “The last enemy to be overcome is death.” 1 Corinthians 15:26. An enemy does not come from God.
In Hebrews 2:14 we read this about Jesus:
"He, in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by death He might make of no effect him who has the power of death, that is, the devil."
Since the knowledge of God (theology) was still developing at the end of the Old Testament era it is important to apply the understanding we have from the New to help us understand and correctly apply the Old.
Genesis 3 does not say that.
When God said, "The ground is under a curse because of you...thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you" there was no 8th day of Creation, nor was God saying, "I have cursed the ground because of you."
Thorns and thistles had always been there, and while Adam and Eve were under control, the things they were given authority over were also under control.
Now that they had transferred their allegiance to the enemy and were out of God's control, the things they had been given authority over would also be 'out of control'. In the West, think of a school classroom - if the teacher has good control the students will be 'under control'. If the teacher does not know how to exercise control, the students will be 'out of control'.
In the East (Africa) corruption is out of control. At most levels of society, from church to government, you can be asked to pay extra to get something that should cost a lot less, or even be free. When people come under God's control and start following the words of Jesus and the wisdom of Proverbs, corruption will come under control.
The same principle applies to the other so-called curses shown in Genesis 3, which are actually consequences, not curses from God.
Yes, it really does say that. What's more, this verse and another similar one in Exodus are referred to twice in the New Testament; once in John's Gospel, as an editorial comment referring to something that Jesus said (John 12:40), and once in Romans (Romans 9:17-18).
However, if we start with the pharaoh, he had already hardened his heart toward the Israelites long before God got Moses involved. See Exodus 1:9-10. He responded to temptation from the evil one to enslave the Israelites. Once we respond to temptation, our heart becomes hardened, not by God, but by the enemy. As people fall into bad actions, they tend to become more and more oppressive towards others, and sometimes even towards themselves.. The enemy do not need God's help to make this happen.
In 2 Corinthians 3:15-16 Paul is talking about his fellow Jewish countrymen when he says:
"Yes, down to this [very] day whenever Moses is read a veil lies upon their minds." v15
In other words, they miss the truth. It's in there, but because of stubbornness and a desire to not change, as well as a feeling of superiority about the exceeding greatness of their existing but incomplete revelation of God, they miss the truth, partly because they think they have it all, anyway. This still applies today. It's possible to change, but they don't want to. It's their decision, not God's. The next verse shows that.
"But whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is stripped away." v16
God doesn't change our mind (repent) for us, we have to do it ourselves, and according to this, it's totally possible. But, as they used to say in the infomercials, "There's more!"
Just a few verses further on Paul identifies the source of the blinding, and it's certainly not God.
"For the god of this world has blinded the unbeliever's minds, preventing them from seeing the illuminating light of the Gospel..." 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Both the hardening and the blinding come from the enemy. The more we fight the truth, the more they are empowered to oppress us and hinder us from seeing it. When we go back to the Old Testament passages we have this same scenario: because theology had not yet developed, because there was no understanding of how the enemy worked. Everything both good and evil was attached to God.
In the end the writer of Hebrews in chapter 3 shows that when our hearts are hardened that is our response to God, not God's manipulation of us. (Aagh, if only some Bible commentators would engage with the whole counsel of Scripture!)
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion in the day of testing in the wilderness." Verses 7-8.
"...take care, lest there be in any of you a wicked, unbelieving heart, leading you to turn away from the living God...that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." Verses 12-13
Heart-hardening is most definitely not the work of God - it lies within our control and becomes our responsibility. Verse 15 emphasises this once more:
"Then while it is called today, if you would hear His voice, do not harden your hearts..."
It's our choice, and always has been, to let our hearts be hardened or softened.
It certainly seems to read that way, but we also know that God has nothing to do with death. So what happened?
Here is the first clue, in Exodus 11:4-5 "And Moses said, Thus says the Lord, About midnight I will go out into the land of Egypt, and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die."
He did not say, "God will kill them." In fact, by going to Exodus 12:23 we can see what really happened.
"For the Lord will pass through to slay the Egyptians..." Oops, that doesn't look too good. But Moses goes on with clarifying details:
"...and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to come into your house to slay you." So it wasn't God who did the slaying, after all. It was God who checked for the blood of the lamb at the entrance to the house before allowing the destroyer to enter if it was absent.
Who is the destroyer?
The same one that Jesus spoke about. The one He called 'the thief."
The adversary (Hebrew = hassatan) and his hordes were not inactive from the temptation in the Garden until the temptation of David to take an illegal census. They had tempted Cain to kill Abel, and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah to perform all sorts of wickedness including violent homosexuality, and Abraham to sell his wife for sex, and even Moses when he killed the Egyptian. But because the theology of God had not yet been developed in the first half of the Old Testament we are left to apply the wisdom that Jesus presented, so that we can work out what was happening back there.
David has killed Goliath and the people are singing his praises, honouring him as ten times more effective than the king. The king becomes jealous and decides to kill David. Where does jealousy come from?
I don't think I have ever heard any preacher, anywhere, who was talking about a destructive emotion like anger, hatred or jealousy, who didn't say, "Well, God created the emotion - we just have to learn to handle (or use) it appropriately."
Well, God didn't, actually.
God created self control, love and honour, and the enemy perverted them into the negative emotions listed above that drive the destructive reactions of so many people. The other negative emotions described in Galatians 5:19-21 as "works of the flesh", in Ephesians 4:30-32 as ones that "grieve the Holy Spirit of God", and in Colossians 3:5-10 as having come from "the old nature," all follow similar patterns.
You can read more about anger and jealousy and hatred and their origins, dismantling and removal in Dealing with Problems here.
This is 1 Samuel 18:10.
"Next day an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul and he raved in his house..."
Where did the evil spirit come from? Not from God, God has angels. It's the devil who has control of the evil spirits, as Jesus pointed out when the religious leaders of His day accused Him of using the power of the adversary to cast out the evil spirits from the people afflicted by the enemy.
When we succumb to the subtle temptation to react negatively to a situation we open ourselves up to be oppressed by the enemy, as happened to king Saul, who then cast his javelin in an attempt to kill the youth whom he saw as his rival. An act of God? Not at all, totally an act of the enemy. It was especially strong in Saul because he had all three - jealousy, anger and hatred - operating in him at the same time.
Note B: Before the enemy can afflict someone with an evil spirit, or a disaster or accident, even sickness and pain, they must get permission from God. God sets limits on what can be done, but not necessarily on the means or methods used. See Job 1:12, 2;6; Luke 22:31-32; 1 Corinthians 10:13. Before the enemy can apply for permission to apply a penalty we must have done something wrong. Most of us achieve that status quite readily!
For further information see Job - Why Things Go Wrong here.
To see a likely scenario as to how this scene (the granting of permission for an evil spirit to afflict king Saul) played out in the court of Heaven, see point 5 below.
Below you will see how we can apply the imagery from other examples in Scripture to help explain what is happening in 1 Kings 22:19-23. If we take isolated stories without cross-referencing them then it's easy to get wrong ideas.
Ahab, king of Israel (the northern tribes in the area later known as Samaria) invited Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (the southern area centered around Jerusalem) to go into battle with him to take Ramoth Gilead from the king of Syria.
Jehoshaphat wisely asked Ahab to first inquire of the Lord from his prophets. Ahab assembled 400 of them who all said the same thing, "Go up; for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king." v6
Jehoshaphat wasn't so sure, and asked for another opinion. Ahab reluctantly called Micaiah, whom he hated because "he never prophesies good for me, but evil." v8
Micaiah initially agreed with the 400 false prophets in a display of satire, but Ahab, knowing that Micaiah always had a contrary opinion, insisted that he tell the truth.
"And Micaiah said, Hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting upon His throne, and all the host of Heaven standing by Him on his right hand, and on His left." v19
There is the first clue, "all the host of heaven, standing by Him on His right hand and on His left."
According to Zechariah 3, which contains a picture of the court of God in Heaven, God the Father is in the centre facing us, with Jesus (there He is called the Angel of the Lord) acting as the defence attorney in front of the accused, but also facing us. The defendant is in front of Them facing Them, while the adversary, as the accuser or prosecutor, is at the defendant's right hand, facing God and the Angel of the Lord.
< insert drawing >
That then places the accuser (Revelations 12:10) at or on God's left hand side. The rest of the host of Heaven are divided into "those on His right hand" and those "on His left."
This is not a neutral crowd.
From the rest of Scripture we know that Jesus (the Angel of the Lord in this case) is also at His right hand, as are God's angels. When Jesus was explaining Judgment Day (Matthew 25:33) He said that the sheep, those who followed Him, would be sent to His right, while the goats, those who chose not to follow Him, would be sent to the left. That's also where the adversary is positioned, and so the "host of Heaven" on God's left will be the adversary and his evil spirits. (Note that at this point in Zechariah 3 Judgment Day is not in progress: the point being made is that God's host is on His right, while the adversary's host is on God's left.)
Let's go back to Micaiah in 1 Kings 22:
"And the Lord said, Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" v20a
The key word here for understanding this verse is the word 'entice', which means to draw someone into a place where they can be easily misled. It is very similar to and even interchangeable with the word 'tempt'. James 1:13 is very clear:
"Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted from God; for God is incapable of being tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one."
Is this just something new under the New Covenant? Not at all. Even a prophet as late as Malachi had to bring a message from God to remind the people:
"For I am the Lord; I do not change. That is why you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6
And so the same Father that Jesus revealed as God is the same Father who was always drawing mankind to Him, even in their apostasy. God did not need to draw Ahab into a place where he could be killed, because there was another there that day in Heaven who is responsible for death, the one Jesus called 'the thief', also known as the accuser and the adversary, the same one who tried to entice Jesus to worship him just after Jesus was baptised and filled with Holy Spirit.
Zechariah 3 shows how the court of Heaven plays out. Now, in 1 Kings 22 God was not asking for a means to kill Ahab - the adversary was.
God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23,;18:32; 33:11) but the enemy do...
God is not willing that any should perish but that all should repent (change their mind). He is extraordinarily patient toward us (2 Peter 3:9), but the enemy are anxious to kill us.
It's always good to remember, and to remind other people who are being tempted towards suicide, that while ever we draw breath we have opportunities, sent by God, to do good for others. The enemy want to stop this because it builds up our treasure in Heaven. See God's Reward System here. God always has a way through, a way past, any problem.
When we make mistakes, and Ahab made plenty of mistakes, the adversary goes before God (to get permission to attack us, which God will generally eventually do while setting limits on what they can do. That is shown in Job 1:6, 1:12; and 2:1, 2:6; 1 Corinthians 10:13 and Revelation 12:10.
The books of 1 and 2 Kings cover events from about the late10th century BC to the early 6th century BC, somewhat before the appearance of 'the adversary' in 2 Chronicles. Because of this I am quite certain that a part of what Micaiah saw is either missed out or has been left out.
We know from the workings of the adversary (also known as the accuser) that he would have first approached God and said something like this: "It's time that you release Ahab to us - he has done so many things against the law." (Remember that the enemy look for our offences so that they can demand our blood/death from God.) "We want him to fall at Ramoth-gilead."
This is where Micaiah's story continues.
"And the Lord said, Who (meaning, How will you...) will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? One said this way, another said that way." v20
"Then there came forth the spirit and stood before the Lord and said, I will entice him." v21
This one is called a spirit because it came from the left hand of God, where the enemy are gathered. On the right hand the 'spirits' of God are known as angels.
"The Lord said to him, By what means? And he said, I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. [The Lord] said, You shall entice him, and succeed also; go forth and do it." v22
God has given approval for this to take place, but God did not send the lying spirit - it came from the enemy's hordes. According to Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man that He should lie..." and Titus 1:2 says, "And God...never lies," so we can safely assume that a lying spirit sent to deceive someone, although approved by God since a penalty is required, does not come from God.
John the Baptist sums it up like this: "Whoever receives His testimony has set his approval to this: that God cannot lie." John 3:33
Who is the liar? Who could send a lying spirit into the mouths of all the prophets?
I am not trying to rewrite history, to set the record straight on my own - Jesus is. Look at what He says in John 8:44.
"...the devil...was a murderer from the beginning" (He is referring to the death of Abel) "and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a falsehood he speaks what is natural to him; for he is a liar and the father of lies."
And so the final words of Micaiah on this vision have to be seen in this light - since the enemy are responsible for deception and lying and death, verse 23 should be understood according to how we understand God, like this:
"So the Lord the adversary has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets." v23a
Micaiah finishes verse 23 like this:
"...and the Lord has spoken evil concerning you."
That looks bad until we realise that it is a figure of speech to describe the way God has finally permitted the enemy to take out Ahab. Jesus spends a lot of time defending us in the court of Heaven before the enemy's accusations but eventually a penalty has to be applied if we don't change our ways.
To help understand more how this system works, see Job's Five Mistakes here. These mistakes empowered the enemy to ask for retribution against Job, which was subsequently granted by God. He then made more mistakes, which is why the enemy were given another chance to attack him.
God does not think like us, move like us, act like us or react like us. When we read things in Scripture that suggest that God has negative emotions like us (anger, hatred, revenge, jealousy and so on) that is what is called 'an anthropomorphism', which is an attempt to explain God using human standards and examples of expression.
One good example of this is in Romans 1:18, where Paul states that "God's wrath is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness of men who in their wickedness repress the truth."
We tend to immediately think of God having an anger reaction like we might towards something that is unpleasant, and then bringing a strong punishment, but that is not how Paul explains it. Through verses 19 to 32 Paul explains how God's wrath is seen, and it's nothing like human anger at all. In fact, according to Paul, God simply lets these people, the evil-doers who are the object of His wrath, eventually do what they want to do, without intervention! (That is in stark contrast to the way God continually works to move us out of making mistakes into making gains.)
"And so, since they do not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a base mind (their own mind set on evil) to do things not proper." Verse 28. Words in brackets are mine.
Sin is not a problem for God.
Isaiah 53 is that famous chapter devoted to the coming Messiah, written at least 500 years before the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part of verse 4 is especially intriguing; the first part is included to help locate the second.
"Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we considered Him stricken, smitten and afflicted by God." (AMP)
While the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus was planned ahead by God, from the foundation of the world, in fact (Revelation 13:8), it wasn't God who executed the plan, but the enemy seeking to destroy the Lamb of God. They just did not realise that the substitutionary death of an innocent man, no less than the biological Son of God, would, as a free gift from God as always, be the sacrificial offering to end all offerings and atone for the sin of mankind.
From Calvary on, no more could it be said for all, "The soul that sins, it shall die."
After talking about the way God has made us all to be right with Him through the redemption bought with Jesus' blood, in Romans 3:25 Paul adds this juicy detail:
"This was to show God's righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins without punishment." (AMP)
Many people don't realise this, or even see it this way, but Isaiah 53:4 puts it quite clearly:
"Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.
Yet we considered Him stricken, smitten and afflicted by God." (AMP)
The pain and the suffering that Jesus went through was not sent by God. It was all the work of the enemy who thought that they could in that way dispose of the Lamb of God and abort God's plan established from the foundation of the world. (See Revelation 13:8.) However, that death and resurrection released so much potential power in us who believe that, had the enemy realised this would happen, "they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." (AMP) 1 Corinthians 2:8.
Isaiah 53:5 has the ultimate, definitive say on this matter.
"But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement (punishment) for us was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed." (AMP)
God has no punishment for wrong-doers or for wrong-doing. Jesus took the penalty for us, not only for us, but for all mankind, from the beginning of time until the end.
God has no penalty for mankind in this lifetime, but on Judgment Day there is a reward and penalty system, based on what every person has done in their lifetime. You can read about God's Reward System here.
While Deuteronomy 18 is referring to prophets in general, who were to speak in God's name with the message that God gave them, it also refers to the One who was to come, the Son:
"I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brethren, and will put My words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I command him. v18
Jesus' application of this?
"So whatever I speak I am saying what the Father has told me to say." (AMP) John 12:50
Deuteronomy 18:19 continues:
"And whoever will not hearken to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him."
Fifteen hundred years later Jesus put it like this:
"If anyone hears My teachings and fails to observe them it is not I who judges him..." (AMP) John 12:47.
That's what He said, in John 5:43 - "I have come in My Father's name" - but what exactly did He mean?
He explained it further in these verses:
"I am not in search of honor for Myself..." John 8:50a (AMP)
"I do not seek My own will, but only the will of the Father who sent Me." John 5:30b (AMP)
"So whatever I speak I am saying what My Father has told me to say." John 12:50b (AMP)
To do something 'in someone's name' means to present their ideas, not your own, as if they themselves were saying it.
At no point did He claim any special power or ability for Himself as He set people free:
"I am able to do nothing by Myself, but as I am taught by God..." John 5:30a (AMP)
"The very works that I do in My Father's name bear witness concerning Me." John 10:25b (AMP)
"Jesus said to them, My Father has enabled Me to do many good deeds..." John 10:32a (AMP)
We tend to think of Jesus as the source of the miracles, but He seemed to deny that:
"I assure you, the Son is able to do nothing from Himself, but He is able to do only what He sees the Father doing."
In other words, signs, wonders and miracles came from the Father, and had always come from the Father.
"My Father is working until now, and I am working." John 5:17 (ESV)
I have not found one reference in Scripture where Jesus ever used His Father's name, or even one of His Father's names. That's because the names that pertain to God in the Old Testament generally represent the Godhead, the three-in-one. Since Jesus was a part of that Godhead He would be referring to Himself as well if He tried to use one of those Old Testament names.
Those Old Testament names were descriptive. Here are three of them:
Yahweh-Rapha (Exodus 15:26): "The Lord who heals" = Doctor
Yahweh-Nissi (Exodus 17:15): "The Lord our Banner" = Flag-bearer
Elohim (Genesis 1:1, many other places): plural noun, God = Creator
However, it's the word that Jesus used continually for God, 'Father', that is not so much descriptive as relational. In the Old Testament, in Isaiah 63:16 God is referred to as father of the nation:
"You, O Lord (YAHWEH), are our Father, our Redeemer from everlasting is Your name."
That's not so much a personal relationship but a communal or national one, tied in to the idea that God is redeeming the nation that has wandered far away. The Israelites of the Old Testament and the Jews of Jesus' day were not used to seeing the Father part of the Godhead - they tended to see Abraham as their forefather instead. (See John the Baptist's comment about this in Matthew 3:9a, and when the Jews challenged Jesus in John 8:53a.)
When Jesus wasn't talking about the Father, when He used the descriptive word 'God' as found a number of times in John 8, for example, He most probably used the Aramaic word 'elaha', which is the equivalent of the Hebrew 'elohim'. However, He continually spoke of His Father as being "your Father" when He was speaking to His fellow countrymen.
Once again, God was opening up the invitation to everyone, ultimately everywhere, to enter into a close, personal relationship with Them, that is, with Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This was a radical idea, conveyed so well in Matthew 5-7 and elsewhere.
Some people think that God's name is 'abba' based on Mark 14:36, when Jesus was praying in Gethsemane before He was betrayed. There's a lot of conflicting information about what 'abba' means or what ideas it conveys. It seems to have a similar meaning in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic as an affectionate term that children apply to their father when they are first learning to speak.
In English speaking countries the word 'dad' or 'daddy' is often taught to little children, who find it difficult to start out with just one syllable, so 'dad' becomes 'dada'. I was listening to my infant grandson a while ago as he started to speak, and I was sure he was saying 'bubba', which is what kids in East Africa learn to say, except that it is spelled 'baba' in Swahili. This word is retained through adulthood and is often used as a mark of respect for older men, where it means 'father'.
And so whatever 'abba' means, it is/was not a name for God the Father, but an affectionate title or description.
A few years ago I asked the Godhead about this very thing. I had been hearing people call the Father 'papa' in certain church circles. Because that's not a term I had ever heard in my decades of experience, I regarded it as affected, or 'put on' as we say in Aussie English. I was surprised to hear back that the Father enjoyed being called 'Papa', but I responded that "I could never say that because I find it childish and 'put on'."
God always has a great sense of humour and the incongruous. Just a few hours later I was praying in the spirit, and realised that I had been using the word 'Papa' in that without any problems.
My biological father's first name was Norman, but most people called him 'Norm'. He had a good name in the town where we lived, and even in surrounding areas. I never called him by name because that would have seemed rude. He was always 'dad' to me, and my siblings.
If we go back to the Gospels and look at the words that Jesus used when activating signs, wonders, healing and deliverance, even though He claimed to be doing everything 'in His Father's name' He never used His Father's name as a part of the action. Doing something 'in someone's name' means something quite different to the literal use of the words in that description.
From December 2002 until February of 2016 I ran and then owned a computer business in Australia. We sold and serviced new and used computers, components and software, and provided computing repair services for the general public.
Within a few weeks of taking over, the number of computers being booked in for service doubled, even tripled. I started to ask customers at random why they had brought in their computer:
"Oh, we heard that you were here." I had not advertised at that stage, and I had no reputation (this was a large, regional city) for fixing computers. Obviously, God was somehow calling people's attention to this little shop which had been established by someone else, several years earlier. I already had a 'name' without having really earned it in this place.
Because of my previous experience in servicing colour TVs I instituted a unique policy whereby every computer coming in for service had to be started or attempted to be started on the book-in bench in front of the customer. There were three reasons for doing this every time, no matter what the symptom or problem or service required:
We always needed to confirm in front of the customer what they were seeing at home - it was not unusual for different faults to show up by the time it was brought in to the shop.
While watching the computer start, or even when it loaded into Windows, the technician could often observe things which the customer was not aware of;
It was not unusual for some computers to not even start when we went to test them in front of the customer. Who would believe us if we only tried to start it after they left, when it had started just fine (more or less) at home?
That was my established policy and I had to train technicians to follow it. It was against anything they had ever seen or experienced, and it took some time and persuasion to get them to do it consistently. Sometimes the customer said they were in a hurry and could not wait; we instituted a policy whereby they had to bring it back or come back later to watch it start up before we would touch it.
Every now and then a technician would bypass this important startup routine in front of the customer, and we would then have problems with the repair that took a lot of customer-relations talk on my part to explain why the unexpected fault had occurred. The computer also had to be started in front of the customer on the book-out bench when they came to pick it up, because until we determined which important component was responsible for all the failures, a computer would occasionally fail again when the customer came to pick it up. Embarassing!
Our reputation grew by word of mouth and simple advertising of our services and location. After a while most jobs were booked in and out by technicians, while I worked in the office, and providing they followed the simple rules (they almost always did), everything went smoothly.
Because they were following both what I said and what I did, because they had heard me deal with customers and seen me fixing computers, when I was not present in the front of the shop there was no need for them to say, "We are booking this in for Trevor," or "This will be fixed in Trevor's name." Customers did not question the reliability of the repair as long as those who worked in my business, in my name, followed my instructions and examples.
Some years ago a car-load of us travelling in the African continent were arrested on the suspicion that we were terrorists and held incommunicado and without food for a day and a half, before we were released without charge on the third day.
Two of those in the car were locals we had invited to come for dinner with us after we had been presenting a conference at their local church. Two others, a man who was driving and a woman who was assisting at the conference, were from a neighbouring country. I was the fifth person and not a local.
During that first night we were all kept in an interview room. At about 3 am the woman assistant started to have severe stomach pains. We had determined in the week prior that she was most probably suffering from intestinal parasites, since the pains could normally be controlled by eating food in the middle of the night. A local pharmacist in her originating country agreed and provided tablets to be taken over 4 or 5 days. She had only taken two or three days' tablets at this stage, and the remaining ones were locked in the impounded car, which we were not allowed to access.
The two local ladies went to work, enthusiastically proclaiming the name of Jesus over the situation, to no avail. They kept this up for ten to fifteen minutes, perhaps more, mostly repeating the words "In Jesus' name" with emphasis and an occasional "I rebuke you" thrown in, but with no change in the pain or discomfort. I allowed them to continue until they gave up, knowing that the young woman in pain was not going to die, and that the two local women might learn something if they watched what happened next.
It took a minute or so, with the young lady holding out her hands before God and speaking to the pain herself, telling it to go just like that before the pain lessened somewhat. I took over to finish the job, cancelling out the parasites and the work they were doing, using just those words without turning it into a prayer by adding "in Jesus' name." What we were doing was "in Jesus' name" since we were using the same techniques that he used, speaking directly to the situation. The pain left completely and did not come back the next night, when we still had had no food and she was incarcerated in the women's gaol. It had been there nightly for many years up to that point.
I was deeply troubled that we had inadvertently involved the two local ladies in the police situation, and asked God why. The answer came the next afternoon.
After interviews with detectives in the morning we were taken to an upstairs holding room in the afternoon. We were able to sit on benches along the wall, but the twenty or thirty locals in there, who had either committed some offence or had been brought in for questioning, were seated on the floor in a tight group. Suddenly, an officer whom we had encountered in the morning, who had been drinking before he came to work and was still somewhat under the influence of alcohol, entered the room and started haranguing the people on the floor, using insulting, offensive and demeaning language towards them.
We were potentially in the same legal position as them, being under suspicion of attempting to commit a serious offence, and the only thing that separated our group of five was a certain amount of 'white privilege' being afforded to me, which had rubbed off on the others who were along in our group.
Those on the floor were totally quiet as they were being abused, but the two local women with us, sitting on a bench nearby but on the other side of the room, started to laugh at their discomfort and nod in agreement with the abuser. I was astonished and tried to discreetly get their attention to get them to stop, but I failed.
Suddenly, everything I had witnessed in this situation and elsewhere in this part of the world fell into place.
There is a caste situation in operation in most, possibly all parts of society here. I had wondered why the officer who was seated in this room had a very rickety desk, tilting dangerously at an extreme angle. Some screws or perhaps some wood glue would have fixed it. For an officer of the law to have equipment like that could only mean one thing - he was not 'good' or 'high enough' to deserve something better. The lower in rank you were, even in a government situation, meant that you would have inferior resources to the person above you. (I had seen this previously in other locations in other nearby countries.) The officer at the desk either did not know how to fix it, or knew that if he did there would be some other way in which he would be shown to be inferior by whomever was next in line above him.
In the morning that same affected-by-alcohol officer had been in our interview room just chatting, a little incoherently, when he was approached by someone, possibly someone who had not been arrested but was making a complaint as a victim of some sort or other, who asked him a question. They were talking normally for thirty seconds or so before the officer suddenly barked, "Get down!"
The young man dropped instantly to his knees and prostrated himself before the officer, face on the floor, at the officer's feet, and stayed there until the conversation ended. They were not equals and he had to abase himself to further his case. That, then, explained the women's position upstairs in the afternoon. Even though they were in a similar position, legally, to those on the floor, because they were seated on benches they were higher in physical position and therefore deemed themselves worthy of being held in higher esteem.
How does this affect the authority they were trying to wield by using the expression "in Jesus' name?"
There are several answers.
1) While some might see results when saying "in Jesus' name," those words did not produce the result. For there to be a result there must be an appropriate command, just like Jesus would give.
2) Authority operates in the spirit realm. If our behaviour does not match up to the authority we are attempting to use we can expect failure.
3) Jesus taught and practised a totally egalitarian system, with no levels of performance or status. If we laugh at others less fortunate than ourselves, or try to grasp for position, we can also expect to find it difficult to wield authority against the enemy.
4) The enemy know who we are, as do the angels. If we have charges resting against us because of our behaviour, in word, thought or deed, the angels can tend to be unable to enforce our commands before the enemy.
5) It is the blood of Jesus which sets people free, not the use of His literal name.
For more information on this and simlar matters, see Say To This Mountain here.
To be continued...