alfred ADASK, partial ‘post’ –
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): – called, (+ sur-) name (-d).
1 Corinthians 6:11—“ And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Acts 2:38—“ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Imagine an old costume drama about King Arthur’s Round Table. Imagine a relatively insignificant knight coming into a king’s court. Normally, that insignificant knight would not dare to speak in the court unless spoken to. But in this case, our insignificant knight boldly announces, “I come in the name of Prince John!” Our relatively insignificant knight does not mean that he’s impersonating Prince John. He means that he “comes in the authority of Prince John”. In other words, Prince John ordered the knight to convey a message to the king’s court. Because the insignificant knight speaks in the greater authority of Price John, he will be heard and respected.
The example of an insignificant knight speaking “in the name” (actually, in the”authority“) of a more powerful prince is analogous to that of relatively insignificant beings like you or I praying, being justified or being baptized in the name of “Jesus”. You and I might not be heard or respected in our own authority, but if we are allowed to speak, pray, justify or be baptized and be heard and respected so long as we act “in the name” (actually, in the “authority“) of a more powerful being.
cynthia note – “sur” is not a “name” but technically a WORD that by country of origin definition is typically a trade or profession, name of a place or geographic\topographic description. In some instances it is in honor to a son’s father’s given name i.e. davidson = david’s son, or angelic or mythos i.e. Michael for the angel Michael, not as common. However, separately and in addition it is synonymous “legaly” as being a form of ‘slave’ or “property” to ‘government’ because it denotes acknowledgement to an ancient “poll” or head tax reinforced by earlier king of England who created the term “sur name” when in fact it is a WORD and not a ‘name’. Think of “bounty hunter” “wanted dead or alive” – monsters, beasts, and animals can be treated as such, but technically living man is said to be immune from such genocide, murder, et al. So, do you acknowledge the “last WORD” in any capacity as “my name” or “that is me”? Or do you instead not only self=-educate but also deny with explanation to educate others regarding “legal last name” is technically in fact not a ‘name’ but a WORD by its definition and or historical context separaate from use of capitus?