What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:22 am

But are you suggesting Philo thought Joshua was a name above all names?

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:44 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:06 am
Some have proposed that the name given is the name Jesus. Moule suggests that "God, in the incarnation, bestowed upon the one who is on equality with him an earthly name which, because it accompanied that most God-like self-giving, has come to be, in fact, the highest of names, because service and self-giving are themselves the highest of divine attributes. Because of the incarnation, the human name 'Jesus' is acclaimed as the highest name; and the Man Jesus thus comes to be acclaimed as Lord, to the glory of God the Father."266 The view that the name Jesus is the name given by God appeals to the support of the next line: in the name of Jesus. Advocates of this view point out that the name Jesus is truly a name, not a title, such as the title Lord.
Against the backdrop of the synoptics, it's of course not easy to imagine that God gave Jesus the name Jesus not until his exaltation.

How should we imagine that? Was he still called Jesus when he "being found in human form, humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death ..."? Or did he have another name?

davidmartin
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by davidmartin » Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:50 am

how about this

Hebrews chapter 1 explores "the name above all names" in some detail, but the actual name Jesus doesn't occur until chapter 3!

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."

This makes it sound like the name is "the son of God", which is superior to being an angel
How does this fit into the arguments i wonder

Strangely this is similar what the Valentinians say in the Gospel of Truth
" the name of the Father is the Son"
"The Son is his name"

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:08 pm

to Secret Alias,
But are you suggesting Philo thought Joshua was a name above all names?
No. I wanted to show the author of the Philippians (and Hebrews. Apollos of Alexandria according to my research) used what Philo wrote, but of course made some changes.
However there is enough similarities to entertain the literary connection between Philo & Apollos:
"Jesus ..., being the name of the most excellent possible character"
and
" ... the name that is above every name,
[Heb1:4b "as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."]
that at the name of Jesus ..."

Cordially, Bernard

davidmartin
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by davidmartin » Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:56 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:08 pm
to Secret Alias,
But are you suggesting Philo thought Joshua was a name above all names?
No. I wanted to show the author of the Philippians (and Hebrews. Apollos of Alexandria according to my research) used what Philo wrote, but of course made some changes.
However there is enough similarities to entertain the literary connection between Philo & Apollos:
"Jesus ..., being the name of the most excellent possible character"
and
" ... the name that is above every name,
[Heb1:4b "as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."]
that at the name of Jesus ..."

Cordially, Bernard
So Hebrews is different from Philippians then
Hebrews the name Jesus is superior because the name means "the son of God" is above being called an angel
In Philippians it's superior because associated directly with the Lord and Paul avoids the term "son of God" in his writings
Paul and Hebrews are different

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8892
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:05 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:56 pm
Hebrews the name Jesus is superior because the name means "the son of God" is above being called an angel
What makes you think that Hebrews is suggesting Son of God as the meaning for the name of Jesus? That makes no sense of the context to me.
Paul avoids the term "son of God" in his writings
Paul using the exact phrase "Son of God" only twice or thrice is hardly the same as Paul avoiding the term, and there are plenty of verses in which Jesus is identified as the Son of God without the use of that exact phrase.

davidmartin
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by davidmartin » Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:34 pm

Ben, "He became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs"
i take it back, i just saw a connection being made to the son of God and Jesus explaining why the name Jesus was more exalted (because Son of God is more exalted than an angel). Not that it literally means "son of God" just by association. That doesn't really help the basic question of where the name comes from originally
i did notice when Jesus is finally introduced it's not in such an exalted place though, finding out that he's made lower than the angels always makes me want to question what i just read in chapter 1.

i still see a difference with Paul. His one or two references to "Son of God" could be additions.
Paul seems hit and miss over identifying him as the son or is it because i haven't properly checked (i haven't!)
1 and 2 Corinthians hardly have the word son at all, unlike Galatians
maybe something going on here in this area?

at some point the actual origins of any name kind of lose out to the meaning of the name people give it?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8892
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:53 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:34 pm
i still see a difference with Paul. His one or two references to "Son of God" could be additions.
Paul seems hit and miss over identifying him as the son or is it because i haven't properly checked (i haven't!)
Easy enough to fix. To begin:

Romans 1.3-4: 3 ...concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord....

Romans 1.9: 9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you....

Romans 5.10: 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Romans 8.3: 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh....

Romans 8.29: 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans 8.32: 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

1 Corinthians 1.9: 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 15.28: 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

2 Corinthians 1.19: 19 For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not yes and no, but is yes in Him.

Galatians 1.16: 16 ...to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,

Galatians 2.20: 20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”

Galatians 4.4: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law....

Galatians 4.6: 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

1 Thessalonians 1.10: 10 ...and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.

I definitely see a few instances I could chalk up to interpolation. But can you get rid of them all?

My suspicion is that you are interpreting a mere difference of focus as a deeper difference of theology.

davidmartin
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by davidmartin » Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:29 am

OK I shall backtrack even further since whatever i thought i saw seems to have disappeared!

RParvus
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:16 am

Re: What Are the Arguments for κύριος being 'the Name Above All Names' (Phil 2:9)

Post by RParvus » Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:02 pm

I think the key to identifying the “name above all names” may be in the verse preceding it: “becoming obedient unto death… “ (Phil. 2:8). The “wherefore…” in the verse that follows it makes clear that the name was given because of that obedience. But is there some deeper connection between the name and that obedience?

Now it just so happens that there once was a cult whose members worshipped a figure whose name means “heed, hearken to”. And they claimed that the demigod’s name was fittingly given to him because he obeyed the Father who sent him for our salvation (“Hunc sequaces […?...] apellatum fuisse […?...] dicebant, id est, obedientem, quia obedivit Patri mittenti illum ad nostram salutem.” Mansi, “Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, vol. 2, col. 1057”). Although this figure was believed by his worshippers to have manifested himself a number of times in history (including as Jesus), they apparently considered his name a sacred one and to be kept secret. Thus, for example, it was ok to refer to him as Zeus; but if you slipped and used his secret name, that would get you “cast out as one ignorant of the mysteries” (Refutation of All Heresies, Hippolytus, 6, 20). The heresy hunter Irenaeus was apparently not impressed with their secrecy: ““They do not confess the name of their master in order all the more to seduce others, yet they do teach his doctrines” (Against Heresies 1, 27, 4).

I am thinking that Jesus’ other name was a secret one; one known to the people who interpolated the Philippians hymn into Paul’s letters. Unfortunately I can’t spell that name out, for that would get me evicted as being ignorant of the mysteries.

Post Reply