Loomis

Yep. Context is vital.

The ‘Paul’ in Philippians 2:6-11 said that every knee would bow to Jesus because God exalted him after he humbled himself by dying on the cross.

But the ‘Paul’ in Romans 14:8-11 said that every knee would bow to Jesus because he became the lord of the dead and the living (after he returned to life).

While this is not a direct a contradiction, it still looks like the work of two different authors. Both are using Isaiah 45:18-25 LXX as a proof text - but they are using it to prove two different points.

Solo

No, it wasn't. That would be my point.

Thank you again.

I assume you are not arguing angelogy, so the 'rationale' for the baby's name would be Matthew's, and would be given to fulfil the prophecy implied by its semantics. Matthew of course accepted Jesus' messiahship of the cross, so yes, the name 'Jesus' to him would be exalted.

As you evidently do not recall, this was in reference to Price's analysis, which I did not think was helpful in this instance.

Yes, I assume that Paul 'really' was in a position to know something and, yes, I would go as far as saying that Paul was a real person, who lived in Jesus' lifetime.

It is possible that Carmen Christi was not composed by Paul, but it appears quite consistent with what the 'undisputed' Paul says elsewhere.

It sure does not seem to take much to send you into the exegetical stratosphere and multiply Paul's identities. Philippians says that every knee should bow to Christ because he earned it. Romans 14 confirms that Christ died and rose to become the judge of the world. Isaiah 45:21-25 passage is referenced here to confess Christ as the 'empowered' Lord. The Romans passage does not elaborate on the reason for Christ's empowerment, and therefore I see no contradiction with Phl., direct or no.

Jiri

Loomis

You have stopped short of explaining why he earned it. The ‘Paul’ in Philippians 2:9 says he earned it for obeying something that resulted in his death on the cross.

But the ‘Paul’ in Romans 14:9 offers a different reason why every knee should bow to Jesus. That ‘Paul’ says that every knee should bow because Jesus became the lord of the dead and the living. – It required Jesus to return from the dead.

The difference is in how each ‘Paul’ defends Isaiah 45:23. It’s as if the need to say something about Isaiah 45:23 is of primary importance; but what is actually said about it is secondary.

Right. Thanks for making my point. The empowerment motif is complexly absent in Romans 14. The 'Paul' of Romans 14 appears to be unaware of what he said in Philippians 2.

Jane H

We agree there's certainly not a contradiction. As I'm sure you're aware, the common authorship of Romans and Philippians is not generally challenged by any shade of belief. I would also repeat Solo's comments on this.

I can't see the different usages. Both are emphasising Jesus as Kyrios- a highly significant development. Both stress the crucifixion and resurrection process as the key that unlocked that status (R14:9, P2:8,9) Both passages push the universality of Christ's Lordship. Romans 14:8 has very clear echoes in Philippians 1.18-26 especially 1:21.

Both passages are using Isaiah 45:23 as an important foundation- this may well be a section Paul used a lot. Both develop the same way- because of Christ's death and resurrection, we should obey his wishes (R-accept scruples P-don't be selfish).

One of the more useful recent academic developments is the realisation that Paul's OT quotations should not generally be read as proof texts. Analysis at least of the near OT context, and at times as far as the whole chapter should be made.

Mind you, you may be correct about authorship in that the poem may well have had a pre-Pauline circulation, and Paul is simply quoting it.

aa5874

So, the Pauline writer LIFTED words from Hebrew Scripture that was ATTRIBUTED to the God of the Jews and then FALSELY claimed that the very God has given Jesus a name above every other name and that every knee shall bow before Jesus when no such thing ever actually happened.

The words in Isaiah 45.23 are in reference to GOD NOT Jesus.

The Pauline writer has BLASPHEMED the name of GOD.

Examine Isaiah 45.18- 23
Examine the BLASPHEMY of the Pauline writer.

Php 2:9-10 - Now if JESUS did exist, he could ONLY have been HUMAN, a mere man. So the Pauline writer FALSIFIED or CHANGED the words attributed to GOD and ELEVATED a man equal to GOD.

What Blasphemy!

This passage in Romans 1 is applicable to the Pauline writers.

Romans 1.22-25 Paul was a fraud and a LIAR. He changed the GLORY of the uncorruptible God into an image of a corruptible man.

JESUS was not given a NAME above every other name, based on Hebrew Scripture, it was the GOD of the Jews, the supposed Creator who gave HIMSELF a name above EVERY OTHER NAME and to WHOM every knee shall bow.

Loomis

Yep. I agree.
But if you accept that Paul is simply quoting it, then you cannot use the similarities between Philippians 1.18-26 and Romans 14:8 to argue that both authors were on a common wavelength regarding the ideas expressed in the poem, Isaiah 45:23, or why every knee should bow.

It is possible that the second author (Romans 14:8-11) didn’t understand the first author (the author of the poem in Philippians 2:6-11). And that Philippians 2:6-11 appears to be saying that God gave someone the name Jesus after he died on the cross attests to that.

Loomis

Yep. That’s more or less it in a nutshell.

Fwiw, in Romans 14:8-11 the Pauline writer LIFTED Isaiah 45:23 LXX – not the Hebrew version. You can tell because of the way he uses the word κυριεύωin in verse 9, and by the presence of the word θεός in verse 11. The Pauline writer of Romans 14:8-11 never heard of Yahweh – or else he just didn’t give a sh*t.

aa5874

In the 4th century, Constantine made Jesus the NEW GOD of Rome. The 4th century is a likely time when "Paul" the possible apostle of Constantine gave JESUS a name ABOVE all other Names and to WHOM every knee should bow on EARTH.

In the OT, the God of the Jews is called the "LORD GOD" but in the Pauline writings Jesus is called the "LORD JESUS" and whenever the words "GOD" and "JESUS" are in the same verse, ONLY JESUS is called LORD.

2Co 1:2 - But, there is ONLY one LORD, THE LORD GOD.

De 4:39 -

Jane H

My line is that “both” the authors were Paul, and that he either wrote the poem himself or felt it expressed what he wanted to say so well he might as well quote it. Either way, there is no reason to suppose different authors of the letter.

Jesus was given a status, not a name, because of his actions. The “name” thing is only there because of Paul's usage of Isaiah 45:23


There's the same issue in the Philippian 2 passage!

The question of which text Paul is referring to is disputable. The LXX is different to the Hebrew (e.g. v23,24). The Hebrew, which unlike the LXX has “The Lord” to begin v24 may have given Paul the clue for his use of the previous verse (the LXX has “every tongue shall confess to God” at the end of v23); however the LXX in putting Kyrios and Theos side by side in v25 could have been read by Paul as pointing to the comparison he makes in 1Cor8:6

(Interestingly, the text corresponds to the Targum of pseudo-Jonathan.)

I can't see how your YHWH conclusion follows from the premises.

Jane H

I'm not sure from what theological perspective these are written.

Essentially, the Early Church came to the conclusion very early on that Jesus had done things, had lived a role, that was reserved for God. This realisation must have come early on in the church, for Paul to make use of Isaiah 45:23 in the way he did, which as you rightly observe is a usage only suitable for God.

Now there were precedents in Judaism for this kind of thing. The pillar of cloud, Wisdom, the Torah, the presence in the tabernacle, were all representations of the presence of the unknowable God. The early Christians believed that Jesus represented another manifestation of this type.

And it seems to have been relatively uncontroversial to the Early Church. We know Paul did have tremendous problems with Torah observation, because it smacks you in the face every time you read him. But his scribbling of Jesus as on the divine side of the equation didn't create these ferocious arguments, and survived his death with ease.


My personal take on it is that Jesus said things and did things in his life which pointed his most close companions towards the conclusion, and this process was completed by the clear actions of the Holy Spirit and a reading of various bits of Scripture.

Not that I expect many to agree with me here. Just saying, like.