Some OT studies I'm doing point out that in Genesis, when Adam names the animals, he thus lays claim to owning them. The OT contains several name changes.

For one, OT patriarch Abram gets a new name (Abraham), when God gives him a particular promise (covenant).

You can name a duck... the duck doesn't care and has no choice. But since people have free will, for their name to change they must accept the name and, by inference, the ownership of the giver of that name.

Thus a person could answer to Jesus that it's OK with them if Jesus gives them a new name-- because by accepting it they acknowledge that they belong to Him.

This is in contrast to the slavery-times practice of owners-- assigning names to slaves the way people name ducks, with no choice by the named one inherent in that process.

For a slave to give Jesus the OK to "change my name" and claim ownership would have been a pretty heavy indication of allegiance, given that the same folks would have been subject to forced naming by secular owners.

The "new" name is the name of the person's sense of sovereign, submitted self, their eternal self-- not their physical, mortal self. "You can name my body but not my soul", in other words. "Mah soul belong to ME an' I give it to Jesus, never min' you think you own me. You can whip me but it's Jesus who OWN me, because I say so."

A breathtaking statement of personal power-- whether actually said/written by a slave or by someone evoking slavery-times thinking and sensibilities.

~Susan