I am intrigued by an idea explored by Dan McClellan and would love the group and Bart’s take on it.
He contends that many “messenger” or angels in the OT were empowered because they held the divine name, the tetragrammatron. Being the possessor of the holy name gave them the power to forgive sins, speak on behalf of the almighty, etc. McClellan further posits that Jesus considered himself a possessor of the divine name, thereby a divine image, thereby God manifest, and a vessel able to extend the oneness with the almighty to his followers.
It’s a very poetic interpretation. I’d love to hear other perspectives on this idea of the name of god manifesting godliness in angels and specifically in Jesus.
*(1)*
The name and Being itself and anything of manifestation of the name and Being itself are the same, i.e. are one.
When Abram:Abraham, Jacob:Israel, Jesus:Sonne, Simon:Peter, Saul:Paul received new names they had also become new Beings.
The image of God (as referring to the Creation story of Genesis) is another way of saying, i.e., to be submissive to. Adam was created to be submissive to the Elohim and God. The Elohim are the Angels and they are also submissive to God.
*(2)*
To be in the image of God is, i.e., to be submissive to the Elohim who brought message to mankind the will of God through the Prophets.
Jesus names God as the Father which was a new thang at the time for Jewz. The metaphors of Father, Son, Spirit will have different meanings to anyone through their experience with a pagan Baal god theocracy.
The image (2) became the same as (1) because it (2) cannot be done without becoming (1) because all of mankind is evil.
build yourself a big boat,
🍺
Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus claim to be the bearer of the divine name.
A good question. If we are talking about Jesus in the gospels, there is, of course, Jn. 8:58. Maybe also Mk 14:62. Or perhaps more interestingly (for certain purposes), Mk. 11:9.
I’m not sure whether he is talking about a reconstructed historical Jesus, or some version of Jesus as creatively construed in early christology.
Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus claim to be the bearer of the divine name?
John 14:10-11 is the best passage I can recall from memory. Father is not the known divine name but a noun-adjective.
to bear: to have it located on or inside your body, but not as a secret. However, it may be concealed.
Jesus was not concealing the Father from them in John 14:10-11. The works were the revealing and bearing. At least one Hebrew should have clearly understood Father as a noun-adjective for their loving and caring God as the opposite of a dreadful Baal lord of fear and wrath.
δύναμις
ἔργον
Those two words have nothing in common with supernatural abilities. At least one Hebrew should have understood that.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert