Jesus being given a name?

[21centpilgrim]

Phi. 2:9-11
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Heb. 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

So it appears that Christ was given/inherited something that he previously did not have? He did not have this name before.
How does this affect the nature of Christ being just as equally God as the Father is?

[TheEditor]

Being raised a JW this was amongst the many arrows in my quiver for the trinity. I am still not a trinitarian as I cannot find (to my mind at least) satisfactory answers to these objections. Although, I no longer believe that these doctrines matter as much as I once did, and I am glad that there are forums such as this that do not automatically reject one as "cultic" if they do not affirm the trinity.

Regards, Brenden.

[21centpilgrim]

Brenden,

Thank you. I am glad to be able to ask such a question here. It is almost taboo to bring up honest questions like this in many circles.

I do hope some people chime in on this.
Grace and peace, Jeremiah

[steve]

I think we all realize that the word "name" in biblical passages like these, does not refer to a person's actual moniker (i.e., the "more excellent name" in view is not the word "Yeshua" or "Jesus" rather than "George," or "Simon"). A "name" in biblical culture referred to one's identity, character, reputation and status. We still use the term in some of these ways, as when we say, "My good name was tarnished by that slander."

According to scripture, Messiah's "name" would be called "Immanuel," Wonderful," "Counsellor," "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father," "Prince of Peace," "Yahweh our Righteousness," and others. We know that no one ever called Jesus by these "names" in His lifetime. They are more like titles or descriptors.

I believe that the scriptures mentioned above suggest that Jesus, through His death and resurrection, attained a status or office that He did not previously possess. This has no direct bearing, in my opinion, upon whether He was deity, either before or after His exaltation. I think the scriptures teach that Jesus now occupies an office that was not previously occupied, but that He is no more or less deity than every before.

That office, to the writer of Hebrews, seems to be that of both High Priest and atoning sacrifice. I don't understand all that these offices imply, but I do believe that they represent a new development introduced at the time of Christ's ascension, placing Him in a new role toward repentant sinners.

The "name" that Paul has in mind, in Philippians 2, is apparently "Lord" (v.11). Of course, God possessed such a title, even in the Old Testament, but in becoming man, there was an emptying of Himself of status and privilege (v.7). He became, for a while, a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death (Heb.2:9). It is from this low position that He was then exalted to status as Lord of everything (Heb.1:4; Phil.2:9). Consider these points, in this connection:

1. Having become man ("Son of Man") Jesus has consequently been entrusted to be the Judge of all men:

John 5:27 — "[The Father] has given [Christ] authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man."


2. By death and resurrection, Christ qualified to be Lord of the dead as well as the living (Before, God was, apparently, not the God of the dead but of the living—Matt.22:32):

Romans 14:9 — "For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living."


Having made these observations, I have to confess that I don't understand all that is involved in these transactions, and could quickly be brought to the limit of my grasp of them under cross-examination. Nonetheless, I make these points only in connection with the question of whether this elevation of Christ, mentioned in the original post, somehow challenges His former status as deity. In my opinion, that status is not compromised in these considerations.

[Paidion]

Phi. 2:9-11
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Doesn't this passage state what that name is? "...so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow..." That name is "Jesus". True, He didn't have that name until it was bestowed upon Him. The angel announced to Joseph that this was the name He was to have. He didn't previously have this name (in his pre-incarnate state).

Heb. 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Same thing. The Greek word translated as "inherited" can also mean "to partake of" or "to receive as a possession." Jesus received the name "Jesus" through the angel's announcement to Joseph.

[steve]

The word "Jesus" is a fine name, to be sure. In itself, however, it is not an exceptional one. Many ordinary people have had that very name given to them by their parents—both before, during, and after the time of Christ. They are not the more special for having those syllables written on their birth certificates.

The significance of the Person that we worship as the Lord Jesus infuses that word with exceptional meaning, when applied to Him. Thus, it is not the name, per se, as a mere proper noun, that is so great, but the particular Person, and the status of that Person, that renders it exceptional.

Jesus was given that name at birth. However, in my understanding, Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1:4 are not referring to something He received at birth, but to the status He acquired through what He accomplished.

[TheEditor]

Steve,

I never understood the passage in Matthew or its parallel in Luke to be refering to the fact that God wasn't a God of the dead previously, and now is. I understood it to be Jesus' rebuke to the Sadducean position on ressurection, when he says, "Even Moses demonstrated in the story about the bush that the dead are raised, when he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, because he considers all people to be alive to him." (Luke20:37, 38). Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all dead at the time Moses spoke those words, but Jesus says they were alive as far as God was concerned. I can't see here that any other point was being made.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

The word "Jesus" is a fine name, to be sure. In itself, however, it is not an exceptional one. Many ordinary people have had that very name given to them by their parents—both before, during, and after the time of Christ. They are not the more special for having those syllables written on their birth certificates.

Correct. Many have been given the name "Jesus" or "Joshua". Notwithstanding, the name means "Saviour". Could that be the reason that this is the name that is above every other name?

[steve]

I never understood the passage in Matthew or its parallel in Luke to be refering to the fact that God wasn't a God of the dead previously, and now is. I understood it to be Jesus' rebuke to the Sadducean position on ressurection, when he says, "Even Moses demonstrated in the story about the bush that the dead are raised, when he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, because he considers all people to be alive to him." (Luke20:37, 38). Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all dead at the time Moses spoke those words, but Jesus says they were alive as far as God was concerned. I can't see here that any other point was being made.

Me too, Brenden.

Correct. Many have been given the name "Jesus" or "Joshua". Notwithstanding, the name means "Saviour". Could that be the reason that this is the name that is above every other name?

I think we are thinking similarly, in that we agree the important aspect of the name is not its syllables, but the character/status of the Possessor.

[Paidion]

I think we are thinking similarly, in that we agree the important aspect of the name is not its syllables, but the character/status of the Possessor.

Yes, I think we do agree about that. The name signifies that character or status.

There are five references in the Old Testament about praising the name of Yahweh: Psalms 113:1, 135:1, 148:5,13, and Joel 2:26.
The concept has been rather ruined by changing the name "Yahweh" (or the short form "Yah")to "the LORD", as the Hebrews at one point did so that they would not take the name of Yahweh in vain.

"Yahweh" means "the existing One" or "The One who was, and is, and shall be" (Rev 4:8). Both the Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh". Both Yahwehs are mentioned in Genesis 19:24, one on earth (the Son) and one in heaven (the Father). Only the Father and the Son have existed from the Beginning of time. For that reason alone, they are worthy of our praise.