This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


Philippians 2:9-11  For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [NASB]

For trinitarians, these verses present the idea that Jesus in not only God, but that the name God has given him is Yahweh, which the Old Testament identifies as the name of God.  Below are the notes from the ESV Study Bible for these verses:

Phil. 2:9  . . . This name is not specified here, but many think it refers to the name Yahweh (Hb. YHWH), God’s personal name, which in the Septuagint is regularly translated as Greek Kyrios, “Lord,” the name specified in Phil. 2:11. In any case, Paul means that the eternal Son of God received a status and authority (cf. Matt. 28:18 and note on Acts 2:33) that had not been his before he became incarnate as both God and man. Jesus’ being given this name is a sign that he exercises his messianic authority in the name of Yahweh.

Phil. 2:10–11 While Christ now bears the divine name Yahweh (“Lord”), he is still worshiped with his human name, Jesus, since it was in the flesh that he most clearly displayed his divine glory to the world. . . .

It seems to me that essential to understanding these verses is the decree stated in Psalm 110:1:

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

That Jesus is Lord relates itself to the second “lord” in Psalm 110:1.  The verse more literally reads:

Yahweh says to my lord (Hebrew adoni [adon, “lord” + i, “my”]):  “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Philippians 2 is not proclaiming that Jesus has the name Yahweh, but rather that God has made him Lord and made his name (which is “Jesus”) above all other names.

22 Responses to ““Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.””

  1. on 25 Jan 2009 at 11:55 amJohnO

    I know this is way off topic… but what do we make of Psalm 110 being an enthronement psalm? “Sitting at my right hand” means that Jesus’ rule has begun, does it not?

  2. on 25 Jan 2009 at 2:37 pmWolfgang

    Hi John O.,

    Indeed …..

    Taking Daniel’s prophecy into consideration about the enthronement of the Messiah when he ascended up to the Ancient of Days, and considering what Peter had to say at Pentecost, I would say that Jesus’ reign (kingdom) has indeed begun almost 2000 years ago.

    The rule for which the rule of David (described, for example, by the term “throne of David”) was the earthly temporal pysical type is the rule of the Messiah from his throne which is heavenly eternal spiritual.


  3. on 25 Jan 2009 at 3:19 pmSean


    Psalm 110 is nicely divided into two events. The first being “sit at my right hand” the second being “stretch forth your strong scepter from Zion, rule in the midst of your enemies.” These two events are separated chronologically by the statement “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

    Psalm 110:1-2
    1 The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” 2 The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”

    Jesus is clearly at the right hand of God today, however, he is not ruling from Zion in the midst of his enemies. This is clearly future. The beauty of this oracle is that it makes room for the two advents of Messiah, which is why the NT refers back to this verse an astounding 23 times.

    To de-politicize the kingdom that Jesus will one day establish on earth makes this Psalm impossible to interpret as a whole. In reference to Daniel 7.13-14 it is clear from Mat 24 that the coming of the Son of Man results in the gathering together of the saints and a time of judgment for the world.

    If we don’t understand these simple themes the Bible is likely to be a very confusing book.

  4. on 25 Jan 2009 at 5:42 pmDustin

    ESV study bible is a joke. One of mt professors who is a NT translator for the NLT study bible said that even other scholars think that the ESV is garbage.

    Stick with NASB (and Greek).


  5. on 25 Jan 2009 at 5:47 pmJohnO


    Daniel 7 has nothing to do with enthronement, nor of literally going to heaven, that is not how the people in Second Temple times read these texts (and that is based on how they used and responded to this text in their other writings).


    These two events are separated chronologically by the statement “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

    I’m not sure that “until” makes the passage mean “sit down and wait” until it is your turn. Rather, to sit at the right hand of YHWH clearly means to become King, does it not? Isn’t that what happens when the ceremony for the new king ends? He sits in his seat and his reign begins?

  6. on 25 Jan 2009 at 8:25 pmBrian


    I’ll be looking for that endorsement on the dust cover of the next printing.

  7. on 25 Jan 2009 at 9:40 pmSean


    You took the opinion of someone that worked on the second worst translation of all time: the NLT?


  8. on 25 Jan 2009 at 10:14 pmRay

    The name (character) of Jesus is the same as the name (character)
    of God. Jesus lived in the name of God while ministering in the days
    of his flesh here upon earth. He walked in the name of the Lord
    God without falling short. He declared the name of God in all his
    days. God was in all of his steps.

    May we all come to do all in the name of Jesus, that we see his
    kingdom come. The word of God shall prevail. His kingdom will
    reign on this earth. His word is producing fruit. The gospel is going
    over the whole earth. Though trouble comes, the word of God comes out on top. It will prevail in Jesus’s name.

  9. on 25 Jan 2009 at 10:30 pmDustin

    Sean, as we all know, each translation has a purpose and a target audience. The NASB is attempting to translate very literally, with a word for word ideal. The NLT is trying to translate in an idea for idea. If we base what they were attempting, then they were quite successful at it.

    My point was that the ESV has had some terrible reviews from the scholarly guild. In one of my final papers I was told by another professor that the ESV was as unnaccaptable to quote as the KJV!


  10. on 26 Jan 2009 at 6:26 amMark C.

    They consider the KJV to be unacceptable to quote? Why is that? I know it’s hard for some people to understand because of archaic English, but I didn’t think it was “unacceptable.”

  11. on 26 Jan 2009 at 8:26 amJohnO


    Unacceptable because it uses very late manuscripts.

  12. on 26 Jan 2009 at 9:23 amMark C.


    I knew it was considered less accurate in some passages because of that, but I didn’t know it was considered unacceptable. That must really annoy the King James Only crowd!

  13. on 26 Jan 2009 at 10:31 amSean


    Sean, as we all know, each translation has a purpose and a target audience.

    NLT target audience = gullible people
    NLT translation purpose = to paraphrase the Scripture so as to leave no ambiguity of what we want the text to say

  14. on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:42 pmJohnO

    Distracted from the distraction 😉

  15. on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:47 pmDustin


    When you compare the manuscripts used to translate the KJV with the much newer mss we have for the modern translations, the differences are astonishing!

    A prime example is the book of Revelation, which in a Greek version was unavailable to the KJV translators, so they used the Latin Vulgate instead. Therefore, the book of Revelation used in the KJV went from Greek to Latin to 1611 English, hardly acceptable now that we have to read through 3 languages!


  16. on 26 Jan 2009 at 8:08 pmRon S.

    Getting back to the original subject of the thread……Psalm 110:1 and its importance in clearly proving who Jesus IS (The lord Messiah) and who he is NOT (Yahweh God), have any of you read Anthony Buzzard’s Focus on the Kingdom newsletter for this month (Jan 2009)? The ENTIRE thing (all 7 pages) is devoted to this very topic. Anthony’s article is entitled “Breaking the Spell of Tradition” and he just made the online PDF version of it available on his website over the weekend (it wasn’t there on Friday when I first checked).

    Here are just a few paragraphs (first two from pg. 2, third from pg. 7) from this excellent piece by Anthony:

    “Tradition has done its “dirty work” on the
    transmission of this verse to us in various translations.
    Under the mistaken notion that Jesus and the New
    Testament writers must have been good orthodox
    believers according to the standards of much later
    church councils (Nicea, 325 AD and Chalcedon, 451
    AD), a capital letter has appeared on the second “Lord”
    in this verse. At the same time it has been a convention
    amongst translators that “Lord” written with a capital
    “L” indicates that the underlying word in the Hebrew
    text is ADONAI (“adon-eye,” rhyming with El
    Shaddai). But if that were so, God (the LORD) would be
    speaking to the Lord God! That would make two Gods!
    Biblical monotheism would be shattered.

    The actual Hebrew word for the second “lord” in the
    Hebrew of Psalm 110:1 is not ADONAI (=Lord God, all
    449 times in the OT), but a deliberately different form of
    the word, ADONI (“adonee”). This form of the word
    appears no less than 195 times in the OT, and it is
    reserved for superiors who are not God, but human (or
    occasionally an angel). The difference between Adonai
    (the supreme Lord God) and adoni (non-Deity lord) is
    critically important for the writers of Scripture, since
    knowing who God is and is not is the core question of
    all intelligent worship and service of God.

    There is no parallel in the history of the exposition
    of the Bible, I suppose, to the constant suppression of
    information by translation and commentary (translation
    is really a form of commentary!) in regard to that second
    lord of Psalm 110:1. It is a verse of vast importance to
    Jesus and to the writers of the New Covenant. It
    provides a lucidly simple and clear definition of
    Yahweh, the One God in relation to another person, the
    Messiah, who is not God, but the Lord Messiah. Adoni,
    my lord, provides the Messianic title for Jesus, par
    excellence. Adoni is the specifically non-Deity title. The
    proposition “Jesus is God” or “Jesus is Yahweh” is in
    direct contradiction to the inspired oracle of Psalm
    110:1. As with the impassioned messages that run
    through the internet and our emails, tell this to your
    friends! It can be life-changing and eye-opening. May
    the discussion begin in earnest and may we all be
    seekers after truth, Bereans (Acts 17:11).”

  17. on 26 Jan 2009 at 8:10 pmJohnE

    For a criticism of ESV see http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2008/12/i-have-to-admit-im-a-bit-of-an-iconoclast-nothing-drives-me-crazy-more-than-smug-satisfaction-or-blind-acceptance-by-t.html

  18. on 26 Jan 2009 at 9:51 pmJohnE

    It seems Ron forgot to close a blockquote or a font tag, everything below shows up in green.

    On topic now, Ron wrote

    Here are just a few paragraphs (first two from pg. 2, third from pg. 7) from this excellent piece by Anthony

    I’ve read a very similar thing more than a year ago in “Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures” by Patrick Navas. Excellent book.

  19. on 26 Jan 2009 at 10:14 pmSean

    It seems the criticisms against the ESV is that it is does not paraphrase enough to make it easy to read. That criticism, to me, is not a negative. I’d rather have closer contact with the languages behind the text than trust some translator to waive his dynamic equivalence wand over the text and obliterate all of the ambiguities that were in the original language.

  20. on 26 Jan 2009 at 10:17 pmJohnO

    I’ve got Patrick’s book on the shelf. Haven’t cracked it yet, after this whopping 700pager I’m reading I think I’m going to need a break from the thick books.

  21. on 26 Jan 2009 at 10:51 pmSean

    Patrick’s a great guy. I’ve enjoyed a number of fruitful email exchanges with him. Have you all listened to his debate against Gene Cook? It’s pretty good. click here to listen

  22. on 26 Jan 2009 at 11:01 pmJohnE

    Patrick’s book is only 565 pages 🙂 I haven’t finished it to this day…


    I’d rather have closer contact with the languages behind the text than trust some translator to waive his dynamic equivalence wand over the text and obliterate all of the ambiguities that were in the original language.

    I fully agree. But he also indicates there are several “Lexical Errors and Problems”…


Leave a Reply