JonA

What system of logic are you using, Mr. Doherty?

Just because we can 'understand' something or see some 'meaning' in it doesn't make it logical.

You attempt to kick aside a particular interpretation because it creates, according to you, a non-sequitur: "There is a rather obvious non-sequitur in these verses that the hymnist should not have felt comfortable with."

Really, Earl? That non-sequitur must have caused trouble for those adhering to the hymn's message, but we are to believe they saw no problem in dead critters rising back to life? Just where is the sequitur in a dead critter rising back to life?

Or is it rather the case that neither is there logic behind the hymn nor was there ever meant to be?

Sure, you're free to break the hymn down as much as you want and in whatever way you wish, but don't pretend that the product you get has any relationship whatsoever to the belief statement the hymn is meant to record.

Your method's great for anyone wishing to know what Earl thinks the hymn means, but utterly useless for anyone interested in knowing what the people who produced the hymn thought it meant, or wishing to know what it says about what they believed.

Jon

Bingo the Clown-O

The author of Philippians never associates the title “Lord” with “God himself.”

The title is always associated with Jesus.

stephan huller

There are Jewish traditions where the divine name gives power to certain individuals. On occasion that individual is Jesus. The problem with applying the name of the Jewish god in this passage is that it doesn't make sense. A man is crucified and as a reward for his righteousness God gives him a name above all names "that at the name of IS (or some such variant) every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth."

I have my own interpretation of the passage and the use of nomen sacrum. Yet this needn't cloud this discussion. Why would the name of IS (= Jesus) be venerated if YHWH was the reward for righteousness? One would expect that the Tetragrammaton should be brought to the ignorant Gentiles THROUGH the example of Jesus's crucifixion and his reward.

If you go to the churches the name Jesus is seen as having magical powers. It has an important numerological significance. It is the logical reading of the passage

sotto voce

Maybe the 'translator' was a damned liar.

'He who blasphemes Yahweh’s name certainly shall be put to death; the whole community certainly shall stone him. As the alien, so the native shall be put to death at blaspheming his name.' Leviticus 24:16 Lexham English Bible

sotto voce

The name 'Jesus', or 'Joshua', was common enough, so it cannot be said to have some inherent essence to provide some sort of magical value. The name means 'Jehovah saves' or similar, so on one level, there is an obvious link with 'he will save his people'. But for Jews, the real significance of this name came in the pre-figurement of the Joshua who led Israel from a desert into the Promised Land. Apart from this, and of course its literal meaning, there is no descriptive force in the name 'Joshua'. Joe and Mary's first child could have been called James, Joseph, Simon or Judas, as his brothers were. Or even 'Earl'. Does that convince?

However, there is ever significance in a change of name in the Bible. Joshua was so named by Moses, his original name meaning just 'Salvation'. So the re-named man was to provide the salvation of Jehovah. Joshua 'saved', yes; but the land of Israel was not a permanent solution, and neither were the repeated sabbath (rest) days this man gave as he re-iterated the whole of Mosaic Law when Canaan was entered. That is because Joshua was a sinner, and could not save his people from their sins. He could save them only from Canaanites!

'Because if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.' Heb 4:8

So the command to Joseph, more than a thousand years on, to name his baby 'Joshua' was to give the grown man, in his context, the identity of a saviour, one who would give entrance to an eternal Promised Land, an eternal rest, after wandering in the 'desert' of unconverted life. The long, yo-yo, often awful history of Israel demonstrated beyond a peradventure that the first Joshua gave only limited joy and prosperity. The pre-figurement of the history of Israel therefore gave the second Joshua, the true Joshua, promise of a better and permanent outcome. It of course told the Jews that, despite all their privileges that made them contemptuous of Gentiles, they were as yet in a 'desert', and were still in need, which of course many of them did not appreciate. They took the shadow for the reality, in the view of the NT.

You're very kind. I think.

Bingo the Clown-O

No one is applying the name of the Jewish god to the passage. What is being applied is the unspeakable name of the Lord per Leviticus 24:16 LXX.

“And he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death: let all the congregation of Israel stone him with stones; whether he be a stranger or a native, let him die for naming the name of the Lord.”

Romans 10:9 shows that some folks treated “the Lord” and “the Jewish god” as separate characters.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

See?

“The Jewish god” raised “the Lord” from the dead.

The original author of Leviticus 24:16 was certainly talking about the proper name Yahweh. But what if the author of Philippians didn’t know that? Or what if the author of Philippians didn’t care? What if the author of Philippians was simply mining scripture from the LXX?

What if the author of Philippians was unfamiliar with the original Hebrew?

What if all the author of Philippians knew was what he read in the LXX?

If we assume for the sake of argument that “God” and “the Lord” are separate characters then Leviticus 24:10-24 remains coherent. – Even if that wasn’t the original author’s intention.

sotto voce

'It is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh — though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Php 3:3-6 NIV

Bingo the Clown-O

It was not a simple “substitute term” for the author of Romans. The author of Romans exploited the shit out of the fact that the LXX read “the Lord.” Some passages in Romans depend on the Lord, and when you try to restore the name Yahweh many passages become incoherent.

Romans 10:9-13 (Joel 2:32 LXX) and Romans 14:8-11 (Isaiah 45:23 LXX) are good examples. As an exercise - try to restore Yahweh’s name in those passages and let us know what you come up with.

So even if you are correct – that "Lord" was originally a designation given to Yahweh because of a prohibition on speaking the "name", then it is obvious from Romans that Christians had exploited it and evolved it into something else.

Bingo the Clown-O

I’m still looking for any evidence at all to show that any New Testament author was ever aware of Yahweh’s proper name. The evidence (or lack thereof) suggests that Yahweh was never the Christian god.

They either didn’t know about it (the name) or perhaps they wanted to pretend it didn’t exist.

Perhaps they needed to get rid of Yahweh (and replace him with 'the Lord') to facilitate the invention of 'Jesus'.

sotto voce

If the LXX is thought of as source rather than mere convenience, one might never find it.