If Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is the “name above all names” new questions and lines of inquiry present themselves, especially when we reflect on developing and variegated onomastic conventions in the ancient world. After a brief overview of those, and taking a cue from the recent work of Matthew Novenson (following Martin Hengel), this chapter considers what insights might be gained about the form and meaning of the confession or acclamation “Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός!” through a consideration of the different ways names, titles and epithets were used in diverse genres and settings.
The chapter has two parts. The first examines name conventions for high status individuals, especially rulers and emperors. That produces some fresh proposals for the meaning of Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός and its three parts. But the results are mixed, since no name for an exalted, or divine, human matches the form and structure of the name Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. In the second part of the chapter, we turn to the multipart names of gods and goddesses. These, I contend, provide the closest parallels to the name that is confessed by all creation in Philippians.
In the first part, we focus especially on the phenomenon of royal and imperial theonymy, which David Litwa has recently argued explains the gift of the name in Phil 2:11. He thinks Christ is given the name Yhwh-Kyrios, just as Seleucid and Roman rulers, starting with Julius Caesar, were given the names of the gods (to form compound names such as Seleucus Zeus Nicator [for Seleucus I] and Jupiter Augustus [for Rome’s first emperor]). Three common features of royal and imperial theonomy are highlighted. Such onomastic assimilation to the gods did not have to mean very much. It did not have ontological implications and it was combined with other forms of address and divine title, such as the weaker “son of God”. Secondly, divine and other honorific names for rulers also had summative or biographical functions. For example, the name Zeus the Liberator (Eleutherios) given to Augustus in the cities of the Greek east after Actium, celebrated his victory over Antony and Cleopatra and his liberation of communities that believed themselves to have been worse off under Ptolemaic rule. In such cases, the divine epithet (“Liberator”) could carry a variety of economic, political, and historic connotations. Thirdly, in the first century C.E., the formal gift of a new divine name or epithet to emperors was consequent upon death and state-sanctioned apotheosis (e.g., Augustus became Divus Augustus, Caligula’s sister Drusilla received the new name Panthea).
A fourth phenomenon is poorly preserved, but was likely well-known in the first century, namely, the giving of divine names or epithets to rulers in hymns to them. For this, the most well-known example is the Athenian hymn to Demetrius Poliorcetes (discussed above in Chapter 2). Another example, closer in time to Paul, has received much less attention but has some striking similarities to Phil 2:6–11. That is the (early first-century B.C.E.) hymn praising a Hellenistic ruler inscribed on a wall of a temple to Isis in the Fayyum, Egypt (Isidorus Hymns 4). In the climax of that hymn, the ruler’s name is revealed as “Porramanres the Great, Immortal”.
All this data confirms our prior conclusion that the name above all names is Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, not Yhwh-Kyrios. So, Litwa’s thesis is not persuasive, and the gift of the supreme name does not betoken or effect a deification. The character of Christ’s three-part name is greatly illuminated by comparison to royal and imperial theonymies, but in important ways it is unparalleled. There is no known example of a pre-existent, quasi-incarnate, imperial figure receiving (as a gift) a divine name during the course of their life or after their death. And the gift of the three-part name in Philippians after Christ’s death does not match the patterns of royal and imperial theonymies, in which a divine name is either added to a ruler’s existing name (during their life) or it replaces other names (after their death). Also, Christ’s new name is given by God, not by some civic body or the Roman senate.
Understanding how high-status names for humans functioned in antiquity helps us appreciate better the role and connotations of each of the names “Κύριος,” “Ἰησοῦς” and “Χριστός”. As part of the three-part name “Jesus” signifies the continuity between the earthly, human, phase of Christ’s life and his post-exaltation one. In contrast to an imperial apotheosis, in which the mortal part of the ruler was consumed on the funeral pyre, Paul’s Christ Hymn proclaims a continuity of identity and this, in turn, implies his (unstated) bodily resurrection. It also means that the cosmic sovereignty of 2:9–11 is not just a divine sovereignty, that belongs to Yhwh-Kyrios. As Phil 3:21 will make clear, Christ is exalted as Jesus, to a position that belongs to the true human being, according to Ps 8—a human sovereignty.
The name, or epithet, Χριστός may also have a particular function in the hymn. It may highlight the representative role that Jesus has, from his earthly life onwards. The Jewish messiah could be thought of as a representative or incorporative figure (e.g., 1 Kgs 4, Ben Sira 50), summing up God’s people and the original identity that was intended for humanity (in Adam). Given the way Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός acts in Phil 3:20–21—communicating a true, divine, humanity to those he comes to save—it is possible that already in 2:6–11, through his incarnational identification with humans, Christ has (as the Messiah) an incorporative role. This ties the epithet Χριστός to the human significance of the name Ἰησοῦς. The “he humbled himself” of 2:8 may also intend Christ’s deliberate identification with that which is common to the human species—a lowly state—or, even, a state, east of Eden, of “humiliation” (3:21). And the two parts of the Christ Hymn—2:6–11 and 3:20–21—may be structured around the two parts of Psalm 8—in its first part, Christ takes on human lowliness and in the last part he brings about a human exaltation. If there is truth to any of these proposals, the word Χριστός functions in Philippians 2:6–11 and 3:20–21 as a typical Greco-Roman biographical summative—retrospective and prospective—epithet, highlighting features of the content, manner and mechanics of Christ’s actions, conduct and character.
The word Κύριος in the supreme name signifies both sovereignty (as “Lord”) and the presence of the one God—Yhwh Kyrios. So, the obeisance he receives really is worship. And the differences between royal and imperial theonymies and the position of this personal name for Israel’s God as the first part of the three-part supreme name shows that the exaltation and giving of the name is not a deification, but a revelation of an existing identity.
Given the lack of correspondence between “the name above all names” and royal and imperial theonymies, we are bound to consider other possible explanatory parallels. New Testament scholars should also bear in mind the fact that the inclusion of a god’s name in a ruler’s name was merely a novel Hellenistic fashion and one that is far less well attested (at least outside of Egypt) than the older, and ubiquitous, practice of giving a god or goddess a compound name, comprised of a personal name plus one or more epithet or epiclesis: ᾿Αθηνᾶ Πολιάς “Athena (Protector of) the City,” Ζεύς Ξένιος “Zeus (Protector) of Guests,” Iupiter Optimus Maximus “Jupiter Best and Greatest,” Ζεύς Ολύμπιος ἐπήκοος “Olympian Zeus, who hears,” for example. There are thousands of examples of such names (preserved in epigraphy, on papyri and in the literary record), compared to attested examples of divine names and epithets for rulers and emperors numbering only in the tens. A compound name for a god or goddess was the more basic, universal, onomastic category than those adapted for rulers. In view of such facts, I argue that, formally and contextually, it is the compound divine cult name that best explains the name “LORD Jesus Christ” in Philippians 2:11. LORD Jesus Christis the name of the one who, as a unique incarnate manifestation of the one God Yhwh-Kyrios, is now exalted (again) in heaven.
The argument begins with a survey of the data and its features. We can distinguish between two types of epithet: the functional and the honorific (or “praise epithet”). Functional epithets often evoke particular stories about a deity’s activities, their characters as depicted in local rituals and a cult image, or their spheres of cosmic and social power. For example, Zeus Ἀπόμυιος “Averter of Flies,” a name for Zeus at Olympia recalled the tale of Heracles, bothered by the flies when he sacrificed there, appealing to Zeus. Athena and Zeus Polias were city guardians, Poseidon Asphaleios, whose shrine was on the island of Delos that was famous for being free of seismic activity, provided insurance against earthquakes. In 201 B.C.E. the epithet ᾿Επιφανής was added to the name Artemis Hyacinthotrophos (“Nurse of Hyacinth”) by the city of Cnidos in Caria to commemorate their goddess’ recent dramatic appearance (as they thought) to rescue the city when it had been besieged by Philip V of Macedon. Such commemorative or biographical epithets looked backwards, in respectful gratitude to a deity under particular aspects or powers. And they looked forwards, in the hope that the god(dess) would again, in the future, act in similar ways for their worshippers’ benefit.
By means of functional epithets, names perform what Robert Parker calls their “bureaucratic or administrative function”. Epithets helped to ensure the address to a deity—in a prayer or a hymn—was appropriately respectful and correctly identified them from amongst other gods and other manifestations of the same god. For example, Venus Genetrix (“Venus the Mother”) was to be distinguished, as goddess of motherhood and domesticity, from Venus Victrix, bringer of victories.
Israel’s scriptures and later Jewish texts make only limited, restricted, use of similar divine epithets. Yhwh could be “of hosts,” “the holy one of Israel,” or “maker of heaven and earth,” for example. He receives such epithets in prose, poetry, prophecy and praise, but not in respect of different cultic locations, since he has only one temple. But, in contrast to the monotheistic constraint on divine onomastics, it is not hard to find evidence that the focusing aspect of polytheistic divine epithets could be “so effective … that Greeks often spoke as if different epithets applied to the same god could create, in effect, different gods”.[1] Or the same god had different epithets in different rituals. Whether epithets created a fragmentation and, thereby, a multiplication of deities, or merely helped to articulate the belief that each god manifests itself in different ways, forms and locations is currently a matter of debate among specialists.
Creative use of a variety of epithets to specify a deity’s particular manifestation correlated to visual variety. Images of Venus Genetrix depict her partially and modestly robed, unlike others in which Venus (or Aphrodite) is fully topless. To speak of a deity by a particular cult name (comprised of divine name plus locally specific epithets) was to conjure a particular visual image, as that was defined by the oldest, authoritative, statue, temple and cult myth that corresponded to that name and epithet.
In contrast to functional epithets (that specify identity), honorific or praise epithets—such as μέγας “great,” ἐπήκοος “listening, attentive,” ἄναξ “king,” ἁγιωτάτη “most holy,” εὐεργέτης “benefactor,” δέσποινα “mistress”—were transferrable and ascribed to many gods (and divine mortals). These often served the competitive religious boasting between rival cults, that was a feature of the imperial age (described by Angelos Chaniotis as “Megatheism”) (cf. the epithet “great” for Artemis in Acts 19:34–35).
The personal names of the gods were also subject to creative etymological interpretation. For example, the name “Zeus—Δία” was often taken to mean that it was διά—“because of”—the head of the pantheon that the world and its processes were as they were. Such explanations of the names and epithets of other Olympians, and lesser and foreign gods served a variety of philosophical, poetic, oratorical, and propagandist purposes.
In the context of these old and widely attested onomastic practices the compound name Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, that begins with the common Greek word that stood in for the name of Israel’s god (Yhwh-Kyrios) is best understood as a divine name with epithets: Yhwh-Kyrios Jesus Christ. This explanation fits the scene of universal, cosmic, acclamation, that should be compared with occasions when communities loudly chanted boastful praise of their deity, with a focus on just the god or goddess’ name (cf. Acts 19:34 μεγάλη ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων). It also fits the way the Philippians hymn invites reflection and the teasing out of its linguistic and semantic ambiguities, tasks that are similar to the common attempt to find hidden meaning in names and epithets. It is a non-local name (without toponyms), but one comparable to polytheistic divine cult name conventions because, by means of “Jesus” and “Christ,” it particularizes, or focuses, the identity of this Yhwh-Kyrios in terms of the story told in the two parts of the hymn (2:6–11 and 3:20–21). Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός are commemorative, biographical, epithets that sum up a larger story about this particular divine being and its recent appearance in space and time. The epithet Χριστός ascribes a representative, incorporative, function to this divine individual.
Every part of the name Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is honorific. God (the Father) honours the unnamed figure with the gift of this name. The epithet Χριστός is honorific, in the sense that it ascribes to this individual a position in fulfilment of biblical patterns of divinely ordained government and eschatologically oriented prophecy. So, it is not an “honorific” in the sense defined by Robert Parker, that is, for transferrable praise epithets, such as “great” or “listening, attentive”. Among his followers, the epithet Χριστός is only used for this, representative Saviour, not for any other figure and, as far as we know, the word was not included in the name of any other Jewish messianic figure.
So, with the revelation of the name Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός the word θεός in v. 6 (twice) has a tacit reference to Yhwh-Kyrios. It is the identity and character of Israel’s one God that is revealed in Christ’s rejection of erotic abductions. It is the great “I am who I am” of Sinai’s ever-burning bush (Exod 3:14)—that the Septuagint translated as Ὁ ὢν—who’s dynamic “being” is manifest in a daring act of incarnational “becoming”. All along this hymn has praised one who is, and whose identity is grounded in, the one God—יהוה.
Several implications follow. By evoking pagan divine name formulae, the divine cult name Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (alongside “God the Father”) helps the author of this hymn to negotiate their belief that the one God is not two. Just as polytheists used epithets to individuate and particularise local manifestations of one, pan-hellenic, divine personality, so too the Christ Hymn uses a compound divine name to individuate the identity of the one LORD God. But in his case the multi-part name is also claimed to be the name above all other polytheistic names for so-called gods.
With respect to Novenson’s ground-breaking study of Χριστός in Paul, in this Christ Hymn the word Χριστός is a functional epithet, not primarily an honorific one. Though it is also honorific (as are the other two parts of the name), not least because (following Parker’s onomastic definitions) Χριστός is an epithet proclaimed in a scene of universal acclamation and worship. In Philippians 2:11, Χριστός is a functional, and honorific, divine cult epithet.
The way Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός functions in other Pauline passages now merits further investigation. Its appearance and role in the redefined Shema of 1 Cor 8:6 suggest the way it is used in Phil 2:11 is basic to Paul’s theology. This being so, copies of the Greek New Testament ought to capitalize the word Κύριος, to respect the fact that it acts to denote the divine name (Yhwh-Kyrios). For the sake of consistency, English translations of Phil 2:11 (and Pauline parallels) ought now to translate “LORD Jesus Christ,” not “Lord Jesus Christ,” if that is the way those translations treat the Tetragrammaton in copies of the Hebrew Bible. So, just as Ζεύς ᾿Ελευθέριος ᾿Αρχηγέτης τῆς πόλεως is “Zeus Liberator Founder of the City,” so too Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ought to be translated “LORD Jesus Christ”.
We should also avoid introducing an unnecessary definite article: the cosmos acclaims “LORD Jesus Christ,” not “the LORD Jesus Christ”. Κύριος here is not a title. In Phil 1:2, Paul offers grace and peace to his readers “from God our Father and LORD Jesus Christ” (cf. 4:20). The word Κύριος in Phil 1:2; 2:11; 3:21 and 4:20 denotes a personal identity (presence and being) before it connotes a particular divine action or position (sovereignty), consequent upon a change of status (via the vindication of resurrection and exaltation). On analogy to the way both the pagan gods were conceived as persons and Roman emperors were worshipped for their superhuman personalities, the Christ Hymn’s recourse to ancient onomastic categories ascribes to LORD Jesus Christ a distinct (eternal) personhood (see further chapter 13).
As a codicil to the main arguments of this chapter, we recognise that, in view of the Christ Hymn’s ambiguities, we should respect the potential for Phil 2:11 to be construed, not as the confession of a name, but as the proclamation of truths. Readers are invited to ponder the various ways that 2:10–11 can be construed and to tease out the fulness of its meaning—and the fullness of the meaning of Christ’s life. So, “… every tongue admit/acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to/for the glory of God the Father” is a possible translation. So too is, “… every tongue admit/acknowledge that Jesus Christ is LORD (Yhwh-Kyrios), to/for the glory of God the Father”. As is, “… every tongue give thanks—because Yhwh-Kyrios is (i.e. ‘has appeared as’) Jesus Christ—for the glory of God the Father.”
[1] Parker, “Cult Epithet,” 175.