Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name (English Standard Version)Concerning "the name" that Jesus was "bestowed" or given him by God, some have speculated that it is "Jehovah" (by which I mean, the Tetragrammaton) or even "Jesus." (see minute 6:59 of this video) Others have suggested that the name given him are those of Isaiah 9:6. Yet others have suggested that the "name" given him is "Lord." (see Anthony L. Ash, The College Press NIV Commentary: Philippians, Colossians & Philemon [Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1994])
But given that the context of the passage is in regards Christ's exaltation, could it be that the "name" given him is not a name in the sense of 'a language unit by which a person or thing is known'? Could "name," then, be in reference to a position or office that is newly given to Jesus from which he is now "above every" position or office (with the exception of Jehovah's, of course)?
The Greek word used here is ὄνομα, which, of course, can be simply a reference to a "name," that is, to "a language unit by which a person or thing is known." However, according to the BDAG (The authoritative lexicon of the Greek New Testament), ὄνομα can also mean "the classification under which one belongs, noted by a name or category, title, category, recognition accorded a person on the basis of performance, name in terms of office held, office."
If ὄνομα is used in the sense of "office," which is the position I am taking, then, in my opinion, this would best fit the context of exaltation that Philippians 2 seems to be about. If someone is exalted, it logically follows that that one was exalted to a position and not to a name in the sense of "a language unit by which a person or thing is known." In regards to my position, what would the "name" given Jesus be?
Josephus in Jewish Wars 4.164 writes:
yet do I, who am clothed with the vestments of the high priesthood, and am called by that most venerable name [of high priest], still live, and am but too fond of living, and cannot endure to undergo a death which would be the glory of my old age; and if I were the only person concerned, and, as it were, in a desert, I would give up my life, and that alone for God’s sake;According to Josephus, the "most venerable [or, "honorable"] name" is that of the high priest. In a Jewish mileu it would appear that "high priest" was thought of as a ὄνομα in the sense of "office." Jesus' new "name," then, would be that of the "high priest." Clearly, this fits well within a context of exaltation such as we have in Philippians 2. Also, this is certainly a new office "given" him or "bestowed" (ESV) him. Further, is it not true that when we pray to God we spiritually 'bend our knees' to Jesus as Lord in prayer as high priest to the glory of God the Father? For these and other reasons I think "high priest" certainly has a good chance of being the "name" in Philippians 2.
What do you guys think?
I am uncertain, but the Divine Name is a real possibility, for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1)Exo 23:21, which I take as Jesus
2)Phil 2:9 includes some language borrowed from Isaiah 45
3)Exaltation of Melchizedek
The benefits of this are twofold:
1)it doesn't matter whether Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega.
2)it disproves the Trinity because he could not be given a name he already had,
if he 'emptied himself' as part of the kenosis he couldn't rightfully claim to be Jehovah (ie. I AM), and don't think Jehovah would be given to his human nature (not that I beleive in that nonsense)
Another related possibility is the 'Logos' (Rev. 19:13), he emptied himself of it at Phil 2, maybe he is given it back?
Or it could just be the 'name' of authority
Yahoel:
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, Jesus' new "name" is in relation to his exaltation. Usually an exaltation involves that of an office or position. For what real good is a new "name" without a new office?
As for "Logos," I personally find that unlikely, that is, if that was his "name" since the "beginning." (John 1:1) If he was exalted to a new higher level or position than that which he had before, it would have to be a name that he didn't have previously.
I would apply the same logic to the Exodus account. If the pre-human Jesus is the angel of Exodus 23:21 and he already, in the past and in some sense, have Jehovah's "name" within him--I think, then, that "Jehovah" is unlikely to be the "name" given him in Philippians 2. This is because Jesus in his pre-human state would have already had the Divine Name within him per Exodus 23:21. So, the name has to be something which he never had before. That is, an office which he never held before given the exaltation context of Philippians 2.
Best,
Ivan
Remember he "emptied himself and took a slave's form" (Phil 2:5) "he was rich and became poor" (2 Cor 8:9), I think the kenosis involved this, that he was no longer 'carrying' the Divine Name, at least in the same sense as before (remember he was permitted to speak as Jah in the 1st person when he was the Logos).
ReplyDeleteNotice it says that he was exalted (ie. to God's right hand) *and* given the name above all others, *If* he emptied himself of it then he could be regiven it.
Who knows? I guess we'll find out when God tells us, remember the Maxim: where the Bible is silent we are silent (usually;)
Regards,
Yahoel:
ReplyDeleteSo it would be correct to sum up your position that the "name" is simply something he already had before he emptied himself of his glory?
Ivan, I think you make some good points but I don't think there is any good reason to limit the semantic range of "name" in this context. First, BDAG says the following:
ReplyDelete"used in combination with God and Jesus...believe in the name of someone i.e. have confidence that the person’s name (rather in the sense of a title, cp. Phil 2:9) is rightfully borne and encodes what the person really is J 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; 1J 5:13." (William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 713.)
While I wouldn't agree that "name" is limited to a mere word, on the contrary, I would agree that the word (Lord, YHWH) in which the person is identified with coincides with what that person really is. That is, Jesus is given the highest office/reputation in His being given the name Lord/YHWH.
As far as Christ being "given something he previously possessed," I don't see this as an issue. Romans 1:4 might serve as a parallel whereby Christ was "declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection." Clearly, Christ was already the Son of God before being declared as such. But the resurrection certainly vindicated Him and offered the final confirmation of who He already was. And likely, His exaltation in Philippians 2:9 expressed something similar.
>>Christ was "declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection."
ReplyDeleteHe was dead for three days, he wasn't the Son of God (In the sense of a living Son) so in his resurrection he does receive something when he is appointed God's Son,
Compare when he quotes the Psl. 'you today have become my son... I... your father".
Ivan: I think *probably* he was given back the name of Exo 23:21, I think it would make sense that in his emptying he no longer carried the Divine Name and when he was exalted he carried it once more,
Remember this is all speculation, the Bible isn't specific, so were just guessing.
I find it interesting comparing Phil 2:9 with 1 Cor 15:27. In his exaltation he is still subordinate to the Father yet 1 Cor 15:28 implies he was functionally equal, or nearly so.
"He was dead for three days, he wasn't the Son of God (In the sense of a living Son) so in his resurrection he does receive something when he is appointed God's Son,
ReplyDeleteCompare when he quotes the Psl. 'you today have become my son... I... your father"."
Ok, so even then, he "lost" the divine name because he died, and then attainted it once again through his exaltation? For that matter, you could say that he stopped being Jesus when he died? My point in saying this is that there is no biblical distinction between this "living Son of God" and a "dead Son of God." That is, the Bible never speaks of Jesus ceasing to be the Son of God in any sense, even in death.
All:
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to suggest that he received back the Tetragrammaton, but I am not totally convinced that that was the name given. True, in John 17:5 he asked the "only true God" for the glory that he had emptied himself of (Philippians 2), but we also know that Jesus didn't just simply regain that name back. We do know he was exalted to the office of high priest, an office that he didn't occupy before. That is why, I am willing to concede, that it could be the Divine Name but that at the same time it would involve a new office, namely, that of high priest.
According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the Greek word translated “name” can refer to “all that a name implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, [and] excellence.”
ReplyDeleteJesus has been given “the name that is above every other name.” All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him.—Philippians 2:9; Matthew 28:18.
1Cor 15:27 God ""subjected all things under his feet."... with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him."" This would be "his God and Father", Jehovah. see vrs 24
The All Authority given him would also have to be in exclusion of Jehovah his Father.
I think the name that is above every name is referring to the "authority" given him by his God and Father. We are told to pray in Jesus Name, that “in the name of Jesus every knee should bend. . . , and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:10, 11)
When we pray in Jesus’ name, we are expressing faith in at least three facets of his role in the outworking of God’s purpose: (1) He is “the Lamb of God,” whose sacrifice provides the basis for forgiveness of sin. (2) He was resurrected by Jehovah and now acts as “high priest” in administering the benefits of the ransom. (3) He alone is “the way” of approach to Jehovah in prayer.—John 1:29; 14:6; Hebrews 4:14,15. Just my take on it.
Revelation19:12"His eyes are a fiery flame,and upon his head are many diadems.He has a name written that no one knows but he himself"
ReplyDelete