Should we close our prayers to our heavenly Father in the “name of Jesus” or “in Jesus name”, or should we always end them with “in the name of Jesus Christ”? Does it matter? Is there any scriptural precedent?
Some brethren, usually of an older generation, object to the use of Jesus alone at the end of a prayer as it tends to associate Christadelphians with the Jesus movement on this Continent. Anyone who has watched Billy Graham on TV knows that he concludes his address by an appeal that all we have to do is “take Jesus into our heart and go to church on Sunday.”
To begin with, the name Jesus alone is used of other men besides the Lord Jesus Christ. In Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8 Joshua of the Old Testament is called “Jesus” because, as we all know, Joshua or Jesus means Yah saves. But there is also a disciple of Christ whose name was Jesus. In Col. 4:11 in Paul’s list of fellow workers we find “And Jesus, which is called, Justus.” In our prayers would we not want to distinguish between these men and the Lord Jesus Christ? The answer might be given that we want to pray through Jesus because he IS our Saviour. However, Gideon was also a savior of Israel although, of course, not in the same spiritual sense. We read in Judges 6:15 that Gideon asks God: “Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel?” The name, Joshua, incidentally, is derived from this Hebrew verb “to save,” or yasha, and the name Yahweh. Again, in our prayers, would we not want to distinguish between our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and these other men who were saviors of Israel?
The Name “Jesus”
Jesus, then, is a man’s name. “Thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins.” It is his personal name, so that we quite often read in the gospels of Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus of Galilee, just as we read of Philip of Bethsaida or Saul of Tarsus. Jesus of Nazareth was a descendant of Abraham through the line of David, of the tribe of Judah.
Even Jesus’ enemies called him by his personal name. In Acts 19: 13-14 we are told of itinerant Jews who took upon themselves the power to expel evil spirits. They did this through the name of Jesus saying, “We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.” Then we find they were sons of the high priest — not exactly Jesus’ friends! Yet they freely used the name Jesus.
The title “Christ”
We all know “Christ” is not a name, but a title meaning the Anointed One. It denotes Jesus’ kingly authority and his mediatorial position. This is important. The Lord Jesus Christ did not become our mediator until his resurrection from the dead and elevation to his Father’s right hand of power. In his lifetime Jesus was a prophet (giving us the Olivet prophecy); now he is our high priest and when He comes He will be our king. Jesus, the man, was not our mediator, but Jesus Christ is. This gives us the doctrinal reason why we should not pray simply through Jesus name. Jesus was his common name among men during his lifetime and he is personally so called in the gospels. But in the Epistles it is Jesus Christ. This can be illustrated as follows:
In the Gospels: “Jesus” alone is used 466 times, “Christ” or “the Christ” only 36 times.
In Acts & Epistles: “Jesus” alone is used only 29 times, “Christ” is used 217 times.
We see there is a progression in the use of the name of our Lord as the New Testament writers grasped the doctrinal significance of the name and title.
The Name & Title “Jesus Christ”
In all the four gospels “Jesus Christ” is found only 5 times! Once in Mth. 1:1 and again 1:18, once in Mark 1:1, and twice in John’s gospel at John 1:17 and 17:3. We would expect to find the name and title, Jesus Christ, of our Lord in both these passages in John’s gospel where they are associated with the principle of God Manifestation — the Word made flesh. Nowhere is “Jesus Christ” found in Luke’s gospel because Luke was a Gentile and his gospel is the gospel of the son of man—Jesus in the flesh.
Further, “Jesus” as a personal name is never found in the epistles of James, Peter, John or Jude. (There is an exception in 2 Peter 1:2 where we read “Jesus our Lord”). This is because James, Peter, John and Jude were disciples of the Lord who had accompanied him in the days of his flesh. They knew the man Jesus. In their epistles we always find “Jesus Christ” in that order, never “Christ Jesus”: the name, followed by the title, as this was the order of their experience. They knew him first as Jesus; that he was the Messiah, the Christ, they learned finally in his resurrection.
“Christ Jesus” is found only in Paul’s epistles! His experience was the opposite to that of James, Peter, John and Jude. Paul knew the Lord first on the road to Damascus, Acts 9:1-6 as the risen Christ.
We can see that the use of the name, “Jesus”, and the name and title, “Jesus Christ,” has been very carefully directed in the scriptures of Truth by the Divine mind. We can see that it matters how we use the name, and the name and title:
“Jesus”—the man, our Saviour.
“Jesus Christ,” or Jesus the Annointed One — our high priest, our intercessor, our mediator, through whom our prayers are presented to our heavenly Father.
“The Lord Jesus Christ”—our high priest given power and authority at the right hand of the Father.
From “Jesus” to “Jesus Christ”
The book of Acts is the transitional book of the New Testament, showing the change in usage from Jesus, to Jesus Christ, and the reason therefore.
At Thessalonica Paul went to the synagogue of the Jews and reasoned with them out of the scriptures for 3 days. His purpose was to convince them that “Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you is Christ,” Acts 17:1-3. They knew of Jesus, but had to be convinced he was the Christ by his resurrection from the dead.
Paul had the same responsibility when he came to Corinth and stayed with Aquila and Priscilla. Every sabbath he went to the synagogue and the record tells us “Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ (margin: Jesus is the Christ)”, Acts 18:5. The Jews took exception to this — we can deduce they realized the doctrinal significance of what Paul was preaching. So Paul washed his hands of them, with very strong language: “Your blood be upon your own heads.”
In the same chapter in Acts we find Apollos, that man “mighty in the scriptures,” doing exactly the same thing. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly,” Acts 18:26. Then we find Apollos following Paul’s example and convincing the Jews publicly “shewing by the scripture that Jesus was Christ (margin again: Jesus is the Christ”). Aquila and Priscilla were convinced by listening to Paul that this was an important part of the gospel they preached. They came across Apollos doing an extremely effective work of preaching and “teaching diligently the things of the Lord” but not quite with a full understanding of the name and title of the savior. They instruct him more perfectly with the result that this becomes one of the key planks in his platform, if we can put it that way.
In the light of these two passages, and of what follows, we today can hardly say it doesn’t matter whether we use “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ.” We see how the disciples of our Lord, working together in their study of the scriptures and preaching efforts, raise the standard of their understanding of the Truth, thereby becoming more effective in their witness.
Today we do the reverse—we weaken our effective witness to the world if we fail to disassociate ourselves from the ecumenical movement and the Jesus movement by not bothering to distinguish between the proper use of the name and title of our Lord.
We see again in what we like to think of as the first Christadelphian public lecture after the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, the proper use of the name and title with Peter preaching to the Jews the same message Paul gave later. Peter concludes a long address, packed with scriptural quotes, with the punch line: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ,” Acts 2:36. His listeners knew Jesus but they did not know Jesus Christ. They knew Jesus, but not Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected.
If we still are not convinced that it matters whether or not we use “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ,” let us take a quick look at John’s writings.
Turning back a few pages to the gospel of John, we find that the very reason John wrote his gospel was to teach the doctrinal significance of the subject of this article: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name,” John 20:31.
In his epistle, John makes the point even more strongly: “Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ,” 1 John 2:22. To deny that Jesus is Anointed is to deny that the Word was made flesh. It is to deny the true nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is to “deny the Father and the Son” as John expresses it — making one an Antichrist.
Later, John gives us the positive side of this doctrinal point: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,” I John 5:1. In verses 10-13 of this chapter, which we will not take space to deal with, we find John’s emphatic teaching on the need to realize the proper relationship of the Son to the Father. We find in this passage echoes of the fundamental principle we alluded to in John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” — again, only 1 out of 2 places in the entire gospel of John where he uses the name and title of our Lord.
Finally, a brief reference to Paul’s last teaching. Paul was in chains for the hope of Israel, Acts 28:20. The hope of Israel was not simply an understanding of the crucifixion as the means of a covering for our sins, but the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, see Acts 24:15, 21; 26:6-8. This is another reason why our prayers should properly be closed through Jesus Christ, not simply Jesus. Elpis Israel, or the Hope of Israel, is not expressed in the name of Jesus, but only in Jesus Christ, because “Christ” has reference, as we have seen, to his resurrection. Our hope is not simply in the man Jesus crucified, but in Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected.
In conclusion, we are baptized “into Christ,” Gal. 3:27 — Never, in the scriptures of Truth, “into Jesus.”
Brethren and sisters, we are separate from the world which lies in darkness. We are separate from the world in our doctrine, in our fellowship, in our way of life and in our worship. Let us not ape the world’s expression in our prayers, but show that we fully understand the name and title of our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected. Then we fulfill the injunction of the apostle Paul when he writes:
“And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” —Phil. 2:11
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One