Name above every Name

[Carl Emerson]

Hi there,

I got some flack on another thread so I wanted to raise the issue here.

Reading John 17, it begins with the statement in verse 2 that Jesus was given Authority (Exousia) from the Father.

Then in 17:11 "Protect them by the power of Your Name the Name You gave me" (Onomati)
an verse 12 "I protected them and kept them safe by that Name you gave me.(Onomati)

So we know that the Father gave Jesus His Name - the Name of Jesus. (Jn 17:11) That was the Father's name.

This is the Name that is above every Name (Eph 1:21) (Phil 2:9)

Now traditionally there has been reluctance to believe that the Name Jesus is in fact also the Name of the Father.

Folks insist that the Name was not given, only the authority and power.

But as I read it, the greek text does not support this.

If John meant authority and not the actual passing on of a Name, he would in these cases have also used Exousia.

Further if Jesus indeed was given the Name above every Name, then the Father does not have some greater Name, rather they share the same Name.

If I am correct then endless discussions over the Name of God the Father become insignificant and the YHWH debates pale into insignificance.

OK I have rudimentary Greek and need more qualified scholars to agree or correct me please.

As I read it then, the Father and the Son share both the same authority and the same name.

 

[Anguspure]

Hi there,

I got some flack on another thread so I wanted to raise the issue here.

Reading John 17, it begins with the statement in verse 2 that Jesus was given Authority (Exousia) from the Father.

Then in 17:11 "Protect them by the power of Your Name the Name You gave me" (Onomati)
an verse 12 "I protected them and kept them safe by that Name you gave me.(Onomati)

So we know that the Father gave Jesus His Name - the Name of Jesus. (Jn 17:11) That was the Father's name.

This is the Name that is above every Name (Eph 1:21) (Phil 2:9)

Now traditionally there has been reluctance to believe that the Name Jesus is in fact also the Name of the Father.

Folks insist that the Name was not given, only the authority and power.

But as I read it, the greek text does not support this.

If John meant authority and not the actual passing on of a Name, he would in these cases have also used Exousia.

Further if Jesus indeed was given the Name above every Name, then the Father does not have some greater Name, rather they share the same Name.

If I am correct then endless discussions over the Name of God the Father become insignificant and the YHWH debates pale into insignificance.

OK I have rudimentary Greek and need more qualified scholars to agree or correct me please.

As I read it then, the Father and the Son share both the same authority and the same name.

Not withstanding my concerns about Jesus/Yehoshua (that a little more reading has laid my mind at rest about), I think you are correct and the name that we have is indeed His name.
The author I quoted earlier writes:
"Before we continue with our study of the word Iesous and Iesus, we would like to point out that we have been led to believe that the correct Name is Yahushúa. He said in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name”. Again, in John 17:11 He prayed to His Father, “… keep them through Your Name which You have given Me” -according to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the United Bible Societies’ Third Edition, and the Majority Text – all of which are over-whelmingly accepted today as being far more reliable than the Textus Receptus. Therefore, in John 17:11 Yahushúa states that His Father’s Name had been given to Him. Again He repeats this irrefutable fact in the next verse, John 17:12, “…in you Name which You gave Me. And I guarded them (or it).” See the footnote on these two verses in teh Revised Authorised Version. Read also John 17:11-12 in any of the modern English versions. So, we have Yahushúa’s clear words, in three tests, that His Father’s name was given to Him. Paul also testifies to this in Ephesians 3:14-15. What then is His Father’s Name? Although most scholars accept “Yahúweh ” and many still cling to the older form “Yehowah” (or Jehovah), we are convinced that the correct form is Yahúweh.1,6

Two factors contributed greatly to the substitution and distortion of Yahushúa’s Name. The first was the un-Scriptural superstitious teaching of the Jews that the Father’s Name is not to be uttered, that it is ineffable, that others will profane it when they use it, and that the Name must be “disguised” outside of the temple of Jerusalem. Because of the Father’s name being in His Son’s Name, this same disastrous suppression of the Name resulted in them (? the Greeks) giving a Hellenised, in fact a surrogate name for Yahushúa. he did warn us in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name … if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.” The second factor was the strong anti-Judaism that prevailed amongst the Gentiles, as we have already pointed out. The Gentiles wanted a saviour, but not a Jewish one. They loathed the Jews, they even loathed the The Mighty One of the Old Testament. Thus, a Hellenised Saviour was preferred. The Hellenised theological school at Alexandria, led by the syncretising, allegorising, philosophying, Gnostic-indoctrinated Clement and Origen, was the place where everything started to become distorted and adapted to suit the Gentiles. The Messianic Faith, and its Saviour, had to become Hellenised to be acceptable to the Gentiles." C J Koster

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

...am I in trouble for calling him Jesus?


ohno

 

[Anguspure]

...am I in trouble for calling him Jesus?


ohno

That is not @Carl Emerson 's point. It was a point I made in another thread. Nevertheless the name that He was given (that we have morphed from Yehoshua to Jesus through the Greek and back into English) is indeed the Name above all Names and He Saves.
First there is the tetragramaton: YHWH which means "He Is". Then there is Yeshua who is "Our salvation".
So combined "Yehoshua" we have "He is our Salvation".
Is that not the name of our God?
He is not simply the one who is (perhaps like the Muslim God), rather He Is Salvation.
This reminds me a little of the geneaology of Genisis 5. It goes: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah.
The names mean: Man, Appointed, Mortal, Sorrow, The Blessed God, Shall Come Down, Teaching, His Death Shall Bring, Mourning, Peace.
From which we get: Man is appointed mortal sorrow. But the Blessed God shall come down teaching His death will bring those who mourn, peace.
Blessed are those who mourn, indeed.

 

[LiquidCat]

Hi there,

I got some flack on another thread so I wanted to raise the issue here.

Reading John 17, it begins with the statement in verse 2 that Jesus was given Authority (Exousia) from the Father.

Then in 17:11 "Protect them by the power of Your Name the Name You gave me" (Onomati)
an verse 12 "I protected them and kept them safe by that Name you gave me.(Onomati)

So we know that the Father gave Jesus His Name - the Name of Jesus. (Jn 17:11) That was the Father's name.

This is the Name that is above every Name (Eph 1:21) (Phil 2:9)

Now traditionally there has been reluctance to believe that the Name Jesus is in fact also the Name of the Father.

Folks insist that the Name was not given, only the authority and power.

But as I read it, the greek text does not support this.

If John meant authority and not the actual passing on of a Name, he would in these cases have also used Exousia.

Further if Jesus indeed was given the Name above every Name, then the Father does not have some greater Name, rather they share the same Name.

If I am correct then endless discussions over the Name of God the Father become insignificant and the YHWH debates pale into insignificance.

OK I have rudimentary Greek and need more qualified scholars to agree or correct me please.

As I read it then, the Father and the Son share both the same authority and the same name.

Perhaps you look for something like this and would like to investigate

First investigate that there is no letter J in early Scriptures

I personally believe that the name Jesus was something like Jeshua which became Jesus later on

If you translate all of the old testament names of the prophets of God they have meaning and Jesus/Jeshua was no exception he was Given name above all names which is Father's name

so Fathers name is YahWeh or YHWH and he was given name Yahoshua which became Yashua and then later on Jeshua and Jesus .

what Yahoshua means is Yah is my salvation or Yah is salvation so the Son of God was given name meaning Salvation which is above all names and it's his Father name also.

Writting it without proper sources and investigation but would suggest to you to dive in deeper about this.

God takes his name very serious and is saying multiple times that his people forgot his name , LORD is not a name it's title you can be called Lord of house or you can be called Lord of dung like God is calling Satan to describe him.

There are some translations with oryginall names if you desire to pick them up.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from Traditional Theology to Paterology, Christology and Pneumatology.​

 

[anna ~ grace]

Hi there,

I got some flack on another thread so I wanted to raise the issue here.

Reading John 17, it begins with the statement in verse 2 that Jesus was given Authority (Exousia) from the Father.

Then in 17:11 "Protect them by the power of Your Name the Name You gave me" (Onomati)
an verse 12 "I protected them and kept them safe by that Name you gave me.(Onomati)

So we know that the Father gave Jesus His Name - the Name of Jesus. (Jn 17:11) That was the Father's name.

This is the Name that is above every Name (Eph 1:21) (Phil 2:9)

Now traditionally there has been reluctance to believe that the Name Jesus is in fact also the Name of the Father.

Folks insist that the Name was not given, only the authority and power.

But as I read it, the greek text does not support this.

If John meant authority and not the actual passing on of a Name, he would in these cases have also used Exousia.

Further if Jesus indeed was given the Name above every Name, then the Father does not have some greater Name, rather they share the same Name.

If I am correct then endless discussions over the Name of God the Father become insignificant and the YHWH debates pale into insignificance.

OK I have rudimentary Greek and need more qualified scholars to agree or correct me please.

As I read it then, the Father and the Son share both the same authority and the same name.

Hey, Carl. I see this as a further example of Jesus' deity; being fully God. The Jews tended to have a not only monotheistic, but monolithic view of God, similar to Islam's idea of tawhid, in some ways. Christ is pointing to not only His own divinity, but to His being One with the Father, and maybe by inference, preparing a way for Trinitarian thought, too.

I agree that the pronunciation of YHWH shouldn't worry us so much. It's not as big a deal as some make it out to be. At all.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thanks for all the comments, summarising, I believe Jesus was given the Father's name not only in sense of authority and power but also the Name itself.