‘Lord’ is not the name above every name

[Irish1975]

At the end of the Kenosis Hymn in Philippians 2:6-11, Jesus is glorified as Lord:

καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι
κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

…and every tongue shall confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father.

There is an obvious reason why we should not suppose that this glorification expresses what is meant by “the name above every name” in 2:9. The subjects are different. It is ὁ θεὸς who gives the name above names in 2:9, but “every tongue” that confesses his lordship in 2:11. There is no warrant for conflating these two moments. The one gives rise to the other by means of the name, in 2:10: “so that [with the result that] at the name ‘Jesus’…” The name is the means by which God the Father enables all cosmic beings to acknowledge and acclaim the exalted one. “Jesus” is the name.

Of course, there is no reason to really think that it is "Jesus" because Phil. 2:11 "and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord" (NIV) or ὅτι ΚΥΡΙΟΣ. Which indicates that the name above all names is "Lord" and is being appended to Jesus. As "Lord" is a name of God, and is commonly used in such a way, hence the LXX replaces Yahweh with "Lord". We don't need to appeal to the Hellenistic but the Jewish setting of the term

The Pauline epistles use both "Lord" as the proper title of God, and as a title of Jesus, so the idea that "Lord" is what Jesus achieves here, using the Genitive, is still a completely consistent parsing of the text as far as I'm concerned, Jesus is becoming coequal with God.

The suggestion that κύριος is “appended as a name” in 2:11 is a faulty analysis.

For one thing, κύριος is not equivalent to ὁ κύριος, the title that the LXX uses in place of YHWH. The use or non-use of the definite article is significant in Greek. Without the article, κύριος functions not as a substantive, but in its original adjectival sense (having power or authority): LORD is Jesus Christ.

The point of 2:11 is to affirm that Jesus Christ has the property of lordship and thus deserves worship. This only works because of the semantics of this verse, which have to be parsed correctly. ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς is a linking verb clause that predicates an attribute, lordship, of the named indidivual JC. (Greek often omits the linking verb “is,” but it must be inferred, and expressed in translation, since ὅτι is a conjunction introducing a “that clause.”)

But if κύριος is parsed as a name (“Smith” e.g.), the statement becomes nonsense. “And every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ Smith,” or, “that Jesus Christ is Smith.” Names and descriptions (titles are a species of description) have different semantics. “Clark Kent is a superhero.” This statement ascribes a property to an individual by means of the description “superhero.” ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς fits this type. “Clark Kent is Superman.” This statement affirms that one and the same individual is known under two names. ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς does not fit this type.

It is empty to say that there is “no reason” to take ‘Jesus’ as the name above of all names, when we are given the explicit text “so that at the name (of) Jesus.” There are many NT passages that express the special power of “the name of Jesus.” Is it only here that it isn’t special and efficacious?

None of this is to deny that the author of this hymn is associating Jesus with YHWH, overtly or suggestively. The name ‘Jesus’ itself is partly composed of the name YHWH.

I just find it curious that the "name above all names" would be the 6th or so most common name for Jewish males back then.

It is somewhat curious. But names in the Bible exhibit many curious phenomena, contrary to what modern people expect. The fact that ‘Jesus’ was a common or popular name for Jewish males doesn’t convince me of anything. Why ‘Abraham’ or ‘Isaac’ or ‘Jacob’ or any other name? I don’t see anything in the Bible to suggest that a common name could not also be a sacred name.

[Jax]

Except, in Sinaiticus at least, the passage is καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι KC IC ΧC εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

I'm willing to concede that KC = Kύριος but really IC could be anything and XC could be Christos or Chrestos.

[MrMacSon]

None of this is to deny that the author of this hymn is associating Jesus with YHWH, overtly or suggestively. The name Jesus [ Iesous — Ἰησοῦς — ] itself is partly composed of the name YHWH.

Ἰησοῦς is the Hellenized version of יהושע Yehoshua or its shortened form ישוע Yeshua, derived from the name הרשע Hoshea’ / Oshea, which, according to Secret Alias, all mean “the Lords saves” or “the Lord is salvation”

I just find it curious that the "name above all names" would be the 6th or so most common name for Jewish males back then

The most relevant thing would be the theological and cultural significance of the name Ἰησοῦς as a translation of יהושע Yehoshua, names which often would have been associated with Moses successor and biblical passages about him

But names in the Bible exhibit many curious phenomena, contrary to what modern people expect. The fact that ‘Jesus’ [ יהושע or Ἰησοῦς ] was a common or popular name for Jewish males doesn’t convince me of anything. Why ‘Abraham’ or ‘Isaac’ or ‘Jacob’ or any other name? I don’t see anything in the Bible to suggest that a common name could not also be a sacred name.

fwiw, Jacob = Israel

[Jax]

The critical part is missing in p46 but I note that another location has IHC with XRC so it is reasonable to suppose that the missing portion is IHC also.

[neilgodfrey]

The classicist John Moles published a case for the common Greek name of Jason simultaneously having special significance that we would not normally expect for a name so common and the relevance of this instance for the status of Jesus as "a name above all names": https://histos.org/documents/2011104MolesJesustheHealer11782.pdf. It's a 66 page article but I've distilled it at https://vridar.org/2018/07/31/that-name-above-all-names/ -- see especially the last two posts linked there addressing the question of commonality of a name being related (or not) to its ontological status.

Is it also a reasonable argument to say that a title loses all its meaning and power once it is turned into an individual name: e.g. I'm thinking of Spanish people named Jesus. Can one imagine those persons - e.g. Jesus Navos the footballer and Jesus Jones the musician etc - attending a pentecostal service with the pastor sweating out the words "at the hooolly naaame of Jeeeesus we bow" and anybody there, including the namesakes themselves, feeling the least inclined to bow before those common namesakes?

The point: names acquire their special cultural meanings and status from their social and cultural context.

Take a name with a higher status than "Lord", Rex, meaning King. Tell me you are a Rex (meaning King) or a Rex of some particular place and I'll think you are mad or especially important. But if your name is Rex and Reg and you tried to tell me that the name makes you a king I'll definitely think you're mad.

But a name, not a title but a name, can have special meaning according to contexts. When in West Side Story Tony sings about the most beautiful sound he ever heard he is only thinking of one person named Maria and that the name Maria has special meaning and magic only when applied to that one girl -- the fact that the name is also a common girl's name is irrelevant.

Are the above thoughts of relevance or not? I think they are, but if not no doubt someone can enlighten me.

[Jax]

The classicist John Moles published a case for the common Greek name of Jason simultaneously having special significance that we would not normally expect for a name so common and the relevance of this instance for the status of Jesus as "a name above all names": https://histos.org/documents/2011104MolesJesustheHealer11782.pdf. It's a 66 page article but I've distilled it at https://vridar.org/2018/07/31/that-name-above-all-names/ -- see especially the last two posts linked there addressing the question of commonality of a name being related (or not) to its ontological status.

Is it also a reasonable argument to say that a title loses all its meaning and power once it is turned into an individual name: e.g. I'm thinking of Spanish people named Jesus. Can one imagine those persons - e.g. Jesus Navos the footballer and Jesus Jones the musician etc - attending a pentecostal service with the pastor sweating out the words "at the hooolly naaame of Jeeeesus we bow" and anybody there, including the namesakes themselves, feeling the least inclined to bow before those common namesakes?

The point: names acquire their special cultural meanings and status from their social and cultural context.

Take a name with a higher status than "Lord", Rex, meaning King. Tell me you are a Rex (meaning King) or a Rex of some particular place and I'll think you are mad or especially important. But if your name is Rex and Reg and you tried to tell me that the name makes you a king I'll definitely think you're mad.

But a name, not a title but a name, can have special meaning according to contexts. When in West Side Story Tony sings about the most beautiful sound he ever heard he is only thinking of one person named Maria and that the name Maria has special meaning and magic only when applied to that one girl -- the fact that the name is also a common girl's name is irrelevant.

Are the above thoughts of relevance or not? I think they are, but if not no doubt someone can enlighten me.

Join us Neil, be a trend setter!

[MrMacSon]

The point: names acquire their special cultural meanings and status from their social and cultural context.

The context here is, imo, more than a social and or even just a cultural context : it's in a theological context, and in a changing and thus dynamic context

[GakuseiDon]

If we look at where Paul uses "name" with relation to Jesus, we have:

1 Cor 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Cor 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Finally, we have Rom 1, which to me parallels Phil 2:

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Here is Phil 2:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

"Declared to be the Son of God" = "God has highly exalted him".

"The name above every other name" = "Jesus Christ". Any use of "Jesus", "Lord", etc, is an invocation of "Jesus Christ".

[Irish1975]

Is it also a reasonable argument to say that a title loses all its meaning and power once it is turned into an individual name: e.g. I'm thinking of Spanish people named Jesus. Can one imagine those persons - e.g. Jesus Navos the footballer and Jesus Jones the musician etc - attending a pentecostal service with the pastor sweating out the words "at the hooolly naaame of Jeeeesus we bow" and anybody there, including the namesakes themselves, feeling the least inclined to bow before those common namesakes?

The point: names acquire their special cultural meanings and status from their social and cultural context.

Take a name with a higher status than "Lord", Rex, meaning King. Tell me you are a Rex (meaning King) or a Rex of some particular place and I'll think you are mad or especially important. But if your name is Rex and Reg and you tried to tell me that the name makes you a king I'll definitely think you're mad.

But a name, not a title but a name, can have special meaning according to contexts. When in West Side Story Tony sings about the most beautiful sound he ever heard he is only thinking of one person named Maria and that the name Maria has special meaning and magic only when applied to that one girl -- the fact that the name is also a common girl's name is irrelevant.

Are the above thoughts of relevance or not? I think they are, but if not no doubt someone can enlighten me.

A rose by any other name…

There are several layers to this. Personal meaning, or associations, is a somewhat different topic from the semantics of proper names (a modern topic in philosophy which, I admit, is only slightly relevant to biblical criticism).

Factors in personal meaning include: the etymology of a name like “Rex”; whether one is named after a specific ancestor or revered figure; how parents and culture model one’s attitude to a name. Some people believe that names actually have power, e.g. that a kid named “Kobe” is destined for great things on the basketball court. I am sure that many kids named “Jesus” who are brought up Christians see a personal significance in it.

Is it a coincidence that more than a few participants in this forum have biblical names?

[Irish1975]

If we look at where Paul uses "name" with relation to Jesus, we have:

1 Cor 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Cor 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Finally, we have Rom 1, which to me parallels Phil 2:

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Thanks for this.

So yes, in the Pauline epistles the sacred name of Jesus is “Jesus” or “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ.” Sometimes the titles “Lord” or “the Lord” or “the Son” etc. are substituted or added.