Why didn't God give Jesus a name that was entirely unique in history?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bohm_Bawerk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bohm_Bawerk

Guest
Why didn’t God (as in, God the Father) give Jesus a name that was entirely unique in human history? Most historians believe that Jesus’ name was quite common for his time, and hence the need by others to differentiate him by his location.

You would expect that the Messiah of Mankind would have a name that was entirely unique and was not given to anyone else. This would conform to Scripture:

“Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
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” (Philippians 2:9-11).

Had Jesus had a really unique name (let’s just say “zuriogoid”), then the verse would be really meaningful. But when you consider that there were many other Jesus’ during Jesus’ time and even before him, it becomes less so.

Does anyone know why God gave Jesus a common name? Do the Church fathers/St. Thomas Aquinas/etc discuss this?

Thanks.
 
I don’t think this passage is supposed to mean that he would literally have a unique name, but this is to emphasize that Jesus is to be exalted–it is a turn of phrase more or less. Also, the name Jesus means “God saves his people,” and so in effect this takes on an even deeper level of meaning–that the name of Jesus is exalted because he is God among us, and he gives salvation to us. You have to read this passage beyond just the literal face value of the words.

-ACEGC
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
Why didn’t God (as in, God the Father) give Jesus a name that was entirely unique in human history? Most historians believe that Jesus’ name was quite common for his time, and hence the need by others to differentiate him by his location.

You would expect that the Messiah of Mankind would have a name that was entirely unique and was not given to anyone else. This would conform to Scripture:

“Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
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” (Philippians 2:9-11).

Had Jesus had a really unique name (let’s just say “zuriogoid”), then the verse would be really meaningful. But when you consider that there were many other Jesus’ during Jesus’ time and even before him, it becomes less so.

Does anyone know why God gave Jesus a common name? Do the Church fathers/St. Thomas Aquinas/etc discuss this?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Running out of material?:rolleyes:

That verse, when applied to Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, or any of the other names applied to Christ is already meaningful and already conforms to that Scripture…as any “former devout Catholic” would already know.

And from the perspective of the atheist persona, it shouldn’t be meaningful anyway…regardless of the name.
 
edward_george said:
I don’t think this passage is supposed to mean that he would literally have a unique name, but this is to emphasize that Jesus is to be exalted–it is a turn of phrase more or less. Also, the name Jesus means “God saves his people,” and so in effect this takes on an even deeper level of meaning–that the name of Jesus is exalted because he is God among us, and he gives salvation to us. You have to read this passage beyond just the literal face value of the words.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This answers my question somewhat. By why didn’t God just ensure that nobody else was named Jesus, since the meaning seems to be so significant? I mean, if someone else other than Jesus (himself) was named Jesus, doesn’t that share in the meaning “God saves us” and thus sort of nullifies the meaning of Jesus - if you get what I mean lol?
 
This is actually a bit of a clever “pun” on the part of the church and scripture (I use the term pun loosely here).

The name (ie, the name above all names) that is bestowed upon Jesus is “Lord”. In the ancient Hebrew scriptures, the four letter name of God “YHWH” would be written out. However, when scripture was read aloud in the synagog, the term “Adonai”, meaning “Lord”, would be substituted.*

The “pun” here is that when Saint Paul wrote the letter to Philippians, the practice of reading “Adonai” aloud in lieu of “YHWH” was a well known and deeply reverent practice. Thus, at the end of the passage, the proclamation that “Jesus Christ is Lord”, Jesus is being bestowed with the name that truly is above all names: the name of God Himself!
*(Incidentally, the pronunciation “YHWH” has been lost to history. Approximations such as Jehovah, and Yahweh have been proposed, but are discouraged out of the ancient practice of not pronouncing the name.)

In modern translations to English, instances in scripture where “YHWH” are used in the original are often written as “LORD”, where as references to “Adonai” are written as simply “Lord”. In the passage, it is the simple Lord, hence why I describe it as a pun :).
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
You would expect that the Messiah of Mankind would have a name that was entirely unique and was not given to anyone else.
Click to expand...
I would expect nothing of the sort. I would never expect a Messiah like Christ.

For that matter, I would not expect that people have neither fur nor tails.

All I would expect is the law of the jungle.
 
This “name” that is intended, according to the Church Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas, is “God”. St. Thomas says, “Therefore, this name, that He should be called and should be God, the Father gave Him, that is, to Christ, as to the true God.”
 
runningdude said:
Thus, at the end of the passage, the proclamation that “Jesus Christ is Lord”, Jesus is being bestowed with the name that truly is above all names: the name of God Himself!
Click to expand...
RD has it exactly correct. The answer is right in the quote you gave.
Bohm_Bawerk said:
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
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" (Philippians 2:9-11).
Click to expand...
And that was not his only name…

*** - the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.**
(Isaiah 7:14)*

For a child is born to us, a son is given to us;
upon his shoulder dominion rests.
They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero,
Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:5)

-Tim-
 
Doesn’t *Jesus Christ *translate into Hebrew as Joshua the Messiah?
 
patrick457 said:
Yes. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
I was looking for confirmation and it seemed relevant to the OP. Though I’ve often heard Jesus referred to as the new Moses and the new Adam, I’ve never heard him referred to as the new Joshua, which I admit may just be the fault of my limited education in these matters.
 
The use of the term “name” can also mean something like “reputation”. We use the same idea when we talk about someone as having a good name when we mean they they have a good reputation. Thus, Jesus would be reputed above all others in human history. Consider the designation of time as BC and AD or even BCE and CE. It hinges on Jesus’ crufixion either way despite attempts to take the Christian connotation out of it.
 
Oldtimer_7 said:
The use of the term “name” can also mean something like “reputation”. We use the same idea when we talk about someone as having a good name when we mean they they have a good reputation. Thus, Jesus would be reputed above all others in human history. Consider the designation of time as BC and AD or even BCE and CE. It hinges on Jesus’ crufixion either way despite attempts to take the Christian connotation out of it.
Click to expand...
Jesus’ birth, actually. “Before Christ,” and “Anno Domini.”
 
You could also ask why God would have Jesus not be your typical ‘king’. Why He didn’t conquer or why wasn’t He an extremely rich and powerful king. Why did God have two women be the first to discover Jesus’ body missing from the tomb, considering women were second class citizens and looked down upon, having virtually no credibility? There’s a list of things that God could have done to distinguish Him and make it virtually impossible for anyone to deny that Jesus was who He said He was. But even if God did everything perfectly, there would still be people that denied Jesus.
 
Thank you Patrick. I was not on my third cup of coffee yet and so the synapses were not firing well.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
Thanks. This answers my question somewhat. By why didn’t God just ensure that nobody else was named Jesus, since the meaning seems to be so significant? I mean, if someone else other than Jesus (himself) was named Jesus, doesn’t that share in the meaning “God saves us” and thus sort of nullifies the meaning of Jesus - if you get what I mean lol?
Click to expand...
So what? 😃 The Jews are very keen on theophoric names after all.

For me: the fact that Jesus had a common, ordinary name brings to mind what Paul wrote slightly before the quote you provided.

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

One of the greatest ironies of Christianity is that it believes in a God who ‘emptied Himself out’ and became a rather unremarkable, ordinary human being.
 
patrick457 said:
So what? 😃 The Jews are very keen on theophoric names after all.

For me: the fact that Jesus had a common, ordinary name brings to mind what Paul wrote slightly before the quote you provided.

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

One of the greatest ironies of Christianity is that it believes in a God who ‘emptied Himself out’ and became a rather unremarkable, ordinary human being.
Click to expand...
Unremarkable, ordinary human being?

How do you account for his alleged miracles?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Unremarkable, ordinary human being?

How do you account for his alleged miracles?
Click to expand...
When I said ‘unremarkable, ordinary human being’ I meant more that Jesus wasn’t the handsome, stiff, nigh-emotionless robot that 50s Hollywood so loved, the kind of guy who speaks in a deep, sonorous King James English that you’d immediately know that He is not a mere man. Heck, His hair and clothes don’t even get messy! 😉
 
Maybe to show humility?

Jesus wasn’t subject to the Law of Moses and yet was still presented in the Temple when he was small. He didn’t have to listen to his parents when they lecture them for giving them a scare when they found him in the Temple after three days. He certainly didn’t have to die on the cross.

Why not give him a common name? He was fully human too. An odd name emphasizes His divinity while a common name, His humanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top