While Kyrios was used in the LXX to translate the Tetragrammaton, its application in the New Testament, particularly in Philippians 2:9-11, surpasses its LXX usage. Here, Kyrios is not merely a substitute for Yahweh but explicitly attributes divine lordship to Christ in a universal and cosmic sense. Philippians 2:11 directly connects Jesus with Isaiah 45:23, where every knee bows and every tongue confesses to Yahweh. This does not merely reflect Jewish-Christian origins but a profound Christological redefinition in light of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ.
The term Maranatha indeed reflects an early Aramaic invocation of Christ's lordship. However, the New Testament's consistent use of Kyrios in Greek contexts—coupled with its application to Jesus in Philippians 2:6-11—demonstrates a deliberate theological move to identify Jesus with the divine Kyrios of the LXX. Paul’s writings, particularly his universalizing language of Jesus as Kyrios, move beyond localized Jewish-Christian traditions and establish Jesus as Lord over all creation (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:6).
Philippians 2:9-11 does more than simply echo LXX practices; it applies the divine name and authority to Jesus in a way that explicitly identifies Him with Yahweh. The confession "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Iēsous Christos Kyrios) in this passage parallels the divine declarations of Isaiah 45, asserting Christ’s equality with Yahweh. This is not a substitution but a theological identification.
While Kyrios does have liturgical and eschatological dimensions in the New Testament, Philippians 2:6-11 places it in a broader theological context of Christ’s preexistence, incarnation, and exaltation. The exaltation of Jesus to the position of Kyrios signifies His unique and divine authority over creation, not merely His role in worship or eschatology. This is a robust assertion of His divine status rather than a functional title.
The contrast in Philippians 2:6-7 is not about outward appearances but about the voluntary condescension of the divine Son. Christ’s "taking the form of a slave" reflects His assumption of a true human nature, not a diminishment of His divine essence. His equality with God (to einai isa theō) remains intact even as He humbles Himself. The Kyrios title affirms that Christ’s exaltation restores the glory He veiled during His earthly ministry (John 17:5).
Maranatha predates Pauline writings and reflects an Aramaic tradition within Jewish Christianity. This supports the argument that the term Kyrios as applied to Jesus originated in a Jewish, rather than pagan, context. This evidence undermines the claim that Hellenistic influences were the primary source of early Christian usage of Kyrios. Instead, the term likely developed from the Jewish tradition of reverence for God's name (YHWH), applied to Jesus within Jewish-Christian communities. The textual tradition dominated by Kyrios aligns with the theological and linguistic norms of Second Temple Judaism, where the Divine Name was replaced with substitutes like Adonai or Kyrios to avoid pronouncing it. Thus, the argument that Kyrios is a later Christian innovation lacks strong support from the manuscript tradition.
This observation (referring to Kyrios as: [1] referring to God, [2] as a petition [e.g., Maranatha], and [3] as an acclamation for Jesus) is accurate and significant. It highlights that Paul inherited the Kyrios language from earlier traditions rather than inventing it. Philippians 2:6–11 demonstrates that Paul integrates pre-existing hymnic material to articulate Jesus' divine status. This suggests that the acclamation of Jesus as Kyrios was already established in early Christian worship. The widespread use of Kyrios in various contexts (e.g., liturgical, eschatological, and theological) underscores its foundational role in early Christian belief.
While it is plausible that Philippians 3:20 and 2:11 reflect hymnic elements, there is no strong evidence to classify 3:20 as part of a hymn. Philippians 3:20 is better understood as a theological assertion tied to Paul's eschatological framework, emphasizing the Christian's heavenly citizenship and expectation of Christ's return.
“ not a diminishment of His divine essence. His equality with God (to einai isa theō) remains intact even as He humbles Himself.” - which would make no sense…
Imagine Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. Gollum possesses a very distorted nature after being consumed by the power of the One Ring. Now, imagine that, instead of being corrupted, Gollum’s inner being is whole and glorious—say, that of a noble king. However, this noble king willingly takes on the form of a frail, ugly, and pitiable figure like Gollum, walking among other creatures to accomplish a specific mission. Even though he outwardly appears weak and diminished, his true essence as a noble king remains unchanged. The king does not lose his royalty, his wisdom, or his intrinsic dignity. He voluntarily assumes this outwardly humble appearance but always retains his true nature. At the right time, the king's full glory is revealed, restoring him to the visible station that corresponds to his inner essence.
This analogy illustrates the principle of res rapta et retinenda ("that which is grasped and retained"), which describes Christ's divine nature in Philippians 2:6-7. Christ, being in the "form of God" (morphē theou), has full equality with God (to einai isa theō). Like the noble king in the analogy, His divine nature is His intrinsic identity—unchanging and eternal. His deity is not diminished when He takes on the "form of a servant" (morphē doulou). Rather, He retains His divine essence while voluntarily veiling it. Christ’s humbling Himself (ekenōsen heauton) does not mean He loses His divine nature. Instead, He willingly chooses not to "cling" (harpagmos) to the visible privileges and external manifestations of His divine glory. Like the noble king taking on the appearance of a lowly creature, Christ veils His divine majesty by assuming a true human nature. The principle of res rapta et retinenda emphasizes that Christ "seized and retained" His divine equality. He did not regard equality with God as something to exploit or grasp for personal advantage but instead emptied Himself by taking on human form. This means Christ retains His divine essence (res retinenda) even as He temporarily "sets aside" the outward display of glory (res rapta). Philippians 2:9-11 describes Christ's exaltation, where His veiled glory is fully revealed. This parallels the moment when the noble king sheds the appearance of Gollum and reclaims His visible majesty, showing that His royal essence was always present but temporarily hidden.
Your argument presumes that Christ cannot remain fully God if He humbles Himself to become man. This objection conflates essence with outward appearance and misunderstands the dual nature of Christ as both fully divine and fully human (hypostatic union). The text does not say Christ stopped being equal with God but that He did not regard His equality as something to exploit. He willingly humbled Himself without forfeiting His divine nature, as seen in His miracles, authority to forgive sins, and other divine actions during His earthly ministry. Christ’s self-emptying (kenosis) refers to a veiling of divine privileges and glory, not a loss of essence. This is consistent with John 17:5, where Christ prays for the Father to restore to Him the glory He had "before the world existed." It was always His but voluntarily veiled. Passages such as John 1:1 ("the Word was God"), Colossians 2:9 ("in Him the fullness of deity dwells bodily"), and John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") demonstrate that Christ’s divine nature remained intact during His earthly ministry. The Church Fathers and Councils (e.g., Chalcedon 451) affirmed that Christ is fully God and fully man. The divine and human natures are united in one person without confusion or division. His humanity does not diminish His deity, just as the noble king's outward appearance does not change his royal identity.
Before this whole thing shuts down I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Brother Foster and all you other erudite contributors and commenters for expanding my horizons as to the possibilities of Biblical knowledge and scholarship. This blog has been a treasure trove of insight, "aha" moments and has strengthened my faith greatly on more than one occasion. May Jehovah continue to guide our efforts to grow in the "epignosis", and I wish Brother Foster all the best as he continues to "make sure of the more important things", outside the blogosphere. Phil 1:10. Heartfelt thanks, agape and philadelphia. Bro Kenehan, UK.
Terence, I greatly appreciate your contributions and participation in this blog. I'm glad that you benefited from the resources here, and believe me, I learned from my fellow spiritual siblings here and others. How true it is that we need to make sure of the important things in these critical last days. May Jehovah bless your efforts to serve him and give him glory.
The UK holds a special place in my heart. I may never visit there again, but who knows? May we all have "intense love" for one another (1 Peter 4:8). Your brother, Edgar Foster (USA).
6 comments:
While Kyrios was used in the LXX to translate the Tetragrammaton, its application in the New Testament, particularly in Philippians 2:9-11, surpasses its LXX usage. Here, Kyrios is not merely a substitute for Yahweh but explicitly attributes divine lordship to Christ in a universal and cosmic sense. Philippians 2:11 directly connects Jesus with Isaiah 45:23, where every knee bows and every tongue confesses to Yahweh. This does not merely reflect Jewish-Christian origins but a profound Christological redefinition in light of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ.
The term Maranatha indeed reflects an early Aramaic invocation of Christ's lordship. However, the New Testament's consistent use of Kyrios in Greek contexts—coupled with its application to Jesus in Philippians 2:6-11—demonstrates a deliberate theological move to identify Jesus with the divine Kyrios of the LXX. Paul’s writings, particularly his universalizing language of Jesus as Kyrios, move beyond localized Jewish-Christian traditions and establish Jesus as Lord over all creation (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:6).
Philippians 2:9-11 does more than simply echo LXX practices; it applies the divine name and authority to Jesus in a way that explicitly identifies Him with Yahweh. The confession "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Iēsous Christos Kyrios) in this passage parallels the divine declarations of Isaiah 45, asserting Christ’s equality with Yahweh. This is not a substitution but a theological identification.
While Kyrios does have liturgical and eschatological dimensions in the New Testament, Philippians 2:6-11 places it in a broader theological context of Christ’s preexistence, incarnation, and exaltation. The exaltation of Jesus to the position of Kyrios signifies His unique and divine authority over creation, not merely His role in worship or eschatology. This is a robust assertion of His divine status rather than a functional title.
The contrast in Philippians 2:6-7 is not about outward appearances but about the voluntary condescension of the divine Son. Christ’s "taking the form of a slave" reflects His assumption of a true human nature, not a diminishment of His divine essence. His equality with God (to einai isa theō) remains intact even as He humbles Himself. The Kyrios title affirms that Christ’s exaltation restores the glory He veiled during His earthly ministry (John 17:5).
Maranatha predates Pauline writings and reflects an Aramaic tradition within Jewish Christianity. This supports the argument that the term Kyrios as applied to Jesus originated in a Jewish, rather than pagan, context. This evidence undermines the claim that Hellenistic influences were the primary source of early Christian usage of Kyrios. Instead, the term likely developed from the Jewish tradition of reverence for God's name (YHWH), applied to Jesus within Jewish-Christian communities. The textual tradition dominated by Kyrios aligns with the theological and linguistic norms of Second Temple Judaism, where the Divine Name was replaced with substitutes like Adonai or Kyrios to avoid pronouncing it. Thus, the argument that Kyrios is a later Christian innovation lacks strong support from the manuscript tradition.
This observation (referring to Kyrios as: [1] referring to God, [2] as a petition [e.g., Maranatha], and [3] as an acclamation for Jesus) is accurate and significant. It highlights that Paul inherited the Kyrios language from earlier traditions rather than inventing it. Philippians 2:6–11 demonstrates that Paul integrates pre-existing hymnic material to articulate Jesus' divine status. This suggests that the acclamation of Jesus as Kyrios was already established in early Christian worship. The widespread use of Kyrios in various contexts (e.g., liturgical, eschatological, and theological) underscores its foundational role in early Christian belief.
While it is plausible that Philippians 3:20 and 2:11 reflect hymnic elements, there is no strong evidence to classify 3:20 as part of a hymn. Philippians 3:20 is better understood as a theological assertion tied to Paul's eschatological framework, emphasizing the Christian's heavenly citizenship and expectation of Christ's return.
“ not a diminishment of His divine essence. His equality with God (to einai isa theō) remains intact even as He humbles Himself.” - which would make no sense…
@Anonymous
Imagine Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. Gollum possesses a very distorted nature after being consumed by the power of the One Ring. Now, imagine that, instead of being corrupted, Gollum’s inner being is whole and glorious—say, that of a noble king. However, this noble king willingly takes on the form of a frail, ugly, and pitiable figure like Gollum, walking among other creatures to accomplish a specific mission. Even though he outwardly appears weak and diminished, his true essence as a noble king remains unchanged. The king does not lose his royalty, his wisdom, or his intrinsic dignity. He voluntarily assumes this outwardly humble appearance but always retains his true nature. At the right time, the king's full glory is revealed, restoring him to the visible station that corresponds to his inner essence.
This analogy illustrates the principle of res rapta et retinenda ("that which is grasped and retained"), which describes Christ's divine nature in Philippians 2:6-7. Christ, being in the "form of God" (morphē theou), has full equality with God (to einai isa theō). Like the noble king in the analogy, His divine nature is His intrinsic identity—unchanging and eternal. His deity is not diminished when He takes on the "form of a servant" (morphē doulou). Rather, He retains His divine essence while voluntarily veiling it. Christ’s humbling Himself (ekenōsen heauton) does not mean He loses His divine nature. Instead, He willingly chooses not to "cling" (harpagmos) to the visible privileges and external manifestations of His divine glory. Like the noble king taking on the appearance of a lowly creature, Christ veils His divine majesty by assuming a true human nature. The principle of res rapta et retinenda emphasizes that Christ "seized and retained" His divine equality. He did not regard equality with God as something to exploit or grasp for personal advantage but instead emptied Himself by taking on human form. This means Christ retains His divine essence (res retinenda) even as He temporarily "sets aside" the outward display of glory (res rapta). Philippians 2:9-11 describes Christ's exaltation, where His veiled glory is fully revealed. This parallels the moment when the noble king sheds the appearance of Gollum and reclaims His visible majesty, showing that His royal essence was always present but temporarily hidden.
Your argument presumes that Christ cannot remain fully God if He humbles Himself to become man. This objection conflates essence with outward appearance and misunderstands the dual nature of Christ as both fully divine and fully human (hypostatic union). The text does not say Christ stopped being equal with God but that He did not regard His equality as something to exploit. He willingly humbled Himself without forfeiting His divine nature, as seen in His miracles, authority to forgive sins, and other divine actions during His earthly ministry. Christ’s self-emptying (kenosis) refers to a veiling of divine privileges and glory, not a loss of essence. This is consistent with John 17:5, where Christ prays for the Father to restore to Him the glory He had "before the world existed." It was always His but voluntarily veiled. Passages such as John 1:1 ("the Word was God"), Colossians 2:9 ("in Him the fullness of deity dwells bodily"), and John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") demonstrate that Christ’s divine nature remained intact during His earthly ministry. The Church Fathers and Councils (e.g., Chalcedon 451) affirmed that Christ is fully God and fully man. The divine and human natures are united in one person without confusion or division. His humanity does not diminish His deity, just as the noble king's outward appearance does not change his royal identity.
Before this whole thing shuts down I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Brother Foster and all you other erudite contributors and commenters for expanding my horizons as to the possibilities of Biblical knowledge and scholarship. This blog has been a treasure trove of insight, "aha" moments and has strengthened my faith greatly on more than one occasion. May Jehovah continue to guide our efforts to grow in the "epignosis", and I wish Brother Foster all the best as he continues to "make sure of the more important things", outside the blogosphere. Phil 1:10.
Heartfelt thanks, agape and philadelphia.
Bro Kenehan, UK.
Terence, I greatly appreciate your contributions and participation in this blog. I'm glad that you benefited from the resources here, and believe me, I learned from my fellow spiritual siblings here and others. How true it is that we need to make sure of the important things in these critical last days. May Jehovah bless your efforts to serve him and give him glory.
The UK holds a special place in my heart. I may never visit there again, but who knows? May we all have "intense love" for one another (1 Peter 4:8). Your brother, Edgar Foster (USA).
Post a Comment