Robert said ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Bren, that is not at all a comparable example. Rather it is an example of how everyone (but you) reads this phrase in the Philippians poem. Note the presence of the extensive relative clauses in this verse of Acts: ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε, ὃν ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐν τούτῳ.
Thus you need a crazy examole like … ‘by the secret unmentioned name that belongs to this actually named person, at the mention if this here unmentioned name …’ Nobody talks or even thinks like that. If you contest this, you ought to be able to come up with at least one example in all of Greek literature that seems comparable. Otherwise you are merely forcing your idea into a text.
The point was how to properly interpret Phil 2:10 “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow”
Is the meaning, “at the name ‘Jesus‘ every knee should bow”; or “at the name possessed by Jesus every knee should bow”.
Now of course even if its the latter the verse still might be referring to “Jesus”, however if its the latter it opens up the possibility that its referring to “yahweh”.
The challenge was to find somewhere in greek literature where the latter interpretation is needed.
This is found in Acts 4:10 “that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead”.
Here it is the extensive relative clauses that are the point. We must interpret this verse in the latter sense above.
ie “the name possessed by Jesus christ of nazareth whom you crucified whom god raised from the dead”
it simply cannot be interpreted as “in the name ‘Jesus christ of nazareth‘ whom you crucified … ” because this would mean the name itself had been crucified.
So this opens up the possibility that ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ is something other than “Jesus”. And in the context of Phil 2 is determined by verse 9 – “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name” ie “yahweh”.
But Bart doesn’t think Paul is referencing the name yahweh in philippians.
Bart “I”m not sure why you’re saying that. The poem ends with: “That at the name of JESUS every knee should bow…” etc. They bow at the name of Jesus, not of Yahweh.” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
If you think Paul means yahweh here you’re agreeing with me not with Bart.
The challenge was to find an example of the genitive of that name being used in the possessive sense which would allow “ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ” to be read in the possessive genitive sense I wanted it to be
Brenmcg “But “Jesus” is in the genitive. The verse is talking about the name he possesses”
Bart “Yes, it is in the genitive. It is a genitive of description. Which name is it to which every knee shall bow? The genitive tells you.”
Robert “Bren! Get real, you don’t understand the genitive. You want it to be possessive here, I get it, but you are stretching the text beyond it’s breaking point. Do you have an example in the whole of Greek literature of a genitive of a name being used in this sense?”
Acts 4:10 uses this possessive sense – as you appear to be agreeing?
The extra explanatory clauses are the very point that show its being used in the possessive genitive. With these clauses it is necessarily read in the possessive genitive. Without the clauses it is no longer necessary to read in possessive genitive but is of course still possible to read in possessive genitive.
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε
with the bold clause ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ is necessarily read in possessive genitive sense, without the bold clause it is no longer necessary but still possible.
I’m not sure if you think Paul is saying Jesus was given the name “yahweh” in phil 2?
Well what I understood from Bart’s replies was that while he thinks Paul says Christ was raised to equality with God he was not given the name Yahweh.
Bart
And we do not have any record of any early Christian calling Christ Yahweh. The only reason people sometimes say that is that they say, Yahweh is God; Jesus is God; therefore Jesus is Yahweh. That is precisely the interpretive strategy that ancient Christians REFUSED to make. Those who DID say that Jesus himself was God the Father (they never used the term Yahweh for that), were declared heretics at the end of the second century and have always been considered heretics since (sometimes they were called Modalists or Patripassianists).
Among other things, you will note, the name Yahweh never occurs in this passage (or anywhere in the NT), and it literally says that everyone will bow to the name of Jesus.
This seems to be consistent with your quote from How Jesus Became God except for Note 12. Even here however he only says “it appears to mean that everyone will acknowledge that Jesus has the very name of Yahweh himself” and doesn’t fully endorse it.
How and ever, if it is accepted the christ is given the name ‘yahweh’ then Phil 2:10 cannot be understood as saying ‘every knee will bow at the name “Jesus” ‘ – it must be understood as ‘every knee will bow at the name possessed by Jesus’ ie “yahweh”
The point of the Isaiah passage is that eventually or at the end of time the whole world will bow to yahweh and confess he is the only god. Not that people will kneel whenever the magic world yahweh is mentioned.
Although yahweh is seen as too holy to be spoken or written down it can still be referenced; the name above every name or the name to which every knee will bow or the name of the lord or, after phil 2:9, the name of Jesus (possessive genitive).
I think the angels of the lord of the OT are supposed to be nameless faceless automata, mere vessels which can house the presence or spirit or name of the Lord. And when they do they’re actions can be described as the actions of the Lord himself.
The angel of Exodus 23 has the presence/name of the lord but not the angel of Exodus 33:2-3, therefore the lord will not be going with them.
Jesus of philippians is a “person” – independent from god the father, and not a vessel housing “the name”. He possesses this name in his own right, he is himself Lord. And according to Paul, not just any lord, but the one Lord through who all things.
Metatron must also be considered a “person” in his own right, here however he’s clearly distinguished from yahweh, “a lesser yahweh”.
So we have in the earliest christian hymn this sense of two independent “persons” both possessing the name yahweh.
But Michael and Gabriel are never given the name yahweh. No-one with their own personhood, only angelic automata, are given thi name. Except and until Jesus.
I think Paul’s text in Philippians is quite straightforward. Equality with god is there for Jesus whenever he wants to grasp it. However he doesn’t want to simply take what is his birthright but wants to earn it. He humbles and sacrifices and himself and so proves himself deserving of the title of Lord. (Something which he could have grasped at any time).
An interesting question is which came first, christian belief that Jesus was the son of god, or the belief that he was lord/yahweh?
Being lord/yahweh causes bit of a problem seeing as god himself is lord/yahweh. Jesus being the son of god would serve as an explanation. Lord/yahweh are titles Jesus inherits as the only begotten son of god.
I’m talking about the angel(s) of the lord, who, when you’ve wrestled with them you have wrestled with the lord, or when you’ve seen them have seen the lord face to face.
They don’t act of their own accord, their words are the lord’s words; (Exodus 23:22 “If you obey his voice and do all that I say”)
and their actions are the lord’s actions; (Exodus 23:23 “My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out”).
He wasn’t called Jesus before he became human but we can still refer to him as Jesus. I can say Muhammad Ali was born in 1942 despite the fact he wasnt called that til the 60s.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)