From: Edgar Foster (questioning1@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Apr 14 1998 - 17:15:50 EDT

After hashing out the GS rule vis-a'vis Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1, I am
beginning to feel even more so that SWTHROS IESOUS XRISTOS is a proper
name. True, it is used by Peter with relative "frequency," and not per
se by other Bible writers. But does the exact construction, SWTHROS
IESOUS XRISTOS have to appear in Scripture to indicate that these
words are in fact "proper"? I don't think so, and here's one reason why.

In the book of Acts, great emphasis is placed on the soteriological
work of Christ. In Acts 3, a man is healed in the NAME of Jesus. In
Acts 4, this healing incident is recounted by the apostles and we are
told that there is not another ONOMA under heaven by which men might
be saved. Acts 5:31 also tells us that God exalted Jesus to the
position of Savior. The soteriological thread is clear. How does this
relate to proper names though?

Normally, ONOMA in the NT, is applied to positions and offices
(authority). With this conclusion I agree; however, Moises Silva
demonstrates in his commentary on Philippians that based on the Hebrew
equivalent of ONOMA (Shem), we probably cannot SEPARATE a POSITION

My thesis is at this point tenuous and "fresh," but I am wondering how
much validity there might be to the view that ONOMA cannot be
separated from the PROSOPON who possesses the said capacity. In this
case, can we REALLY separate the title of SWTHR from IESOUS XRISTOS?
Can we separate the capacity (SWTHR) from the Person (IESOUS XRISTOS).
The verses in Acts suggest that we cannot. What think ye?

E. Foster

L-R College

P.S. BTW, I'm not question-loading, just thinking out loud. :)


Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT