Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
BobbyGarringer
Posts: 6
Joined: April 7th, 2018, 8:48 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by BobbyGarringer » April 7th, 2018, 9:11 pm

I have a question about the use of the connective, DIO, in the Philippians 2:6-11 hymn.

(1) Since DIO is an inferential connective (not in itself an indication of chronological advance) and (2) since DIO can be translated “this is why” and (3) if God had highly exalted Jesus and bestowed on him the name above every name - prior to - his obeying to the point of death and (4) if we take the most natural reading of verses 9 and 10 that the name bestowed on him - was - the name Jesus and (5) if the information stated in points 3 and 4 were known to the Philippian readers: then could the statement that begins with DIO in verse 9 express all of this (with aorist tenses), rather than introduce what God did - after - Jesus’ death?

From a theological perspective: of course, God knew in advance what would transpire. And of course, he highly exalted Jesus (in different contexts and in various ways) during his life and ministry. And all along, the name of God's humble servant was Jesus. This would have been common knowledge to - all - believers, including those at Philippi.

So then - assuming all of the above - could this be a possible use of DIO, followed by aorist tense verbs, beginning in Philippians 2:9?
0 x



Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 736
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm

BobbyGarringer wrote:
April 7th, 2018, 9:11 pm
I have a question about the use of the connective, DIO, in the Philippians 2:6-11 hymn.

(1) Since DIO is an inferential connective (not in itself an indication of chronological advance) and (2) since DIO can be translated “this is why” and (3) if God had highly exalted Jesus and bestowed on him the name above every name - prior to - his obeying to the point of death and (4) if we take the most natural reading of verses 9 and 10 that the name bestowed on him - was - the name Jesus and (5) if the information stated in points 3 and 4 were known to the Philippian readers: then could the statement that begins with DIO in verse 9 express all of this (with aorist tenses), rather than introduce what God did - after - Jesus’ death?

From a theological perspective: of course, God knew in advance what would transpire. And of course, he highly exalted Jesus (in different contexts and in various ways) during his life and ministry. And all along, the name of God's humble servant was Jesus. This would have been common knowledge to - all - believers, including those at Philippi.

So then - assuming all of the above - could this be a possible use of DIO, followed by aorist tense verbs, beginning in Philippians 2:9?
Hello Bobby,

I've highlighted where I think your argument breaks down. I'll leave it to others to explain the logic of the passage. In my simplistic approach διὸ assumes everything found in verses five through eight.

To discuss this we need to cite the context:
NA27 Phil. 2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 736
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 8th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Another question about your hypothesis: What was the name given Him?

NA27 Phil. 2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

From her PhD dissertation, Rachael Tan 2017 page 95.
The Father has given him the name above every name
which has been variously postulated as Jesus, Jesus Christ, Son, God, or Lord.316
This name is above every name (τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα) and there are four
reasons for interpreting it as referring to κύριος which is the most sacred and
personal name of God used in the LXX to render the Hebrew name 1) :יהוה ) Jesus is
identified as κύριος in the ἵνα clause in verses 10-11 which is dependent upon the
main clause in verse 9; (2) As a Jew, Paul would definitely regard Yahweh as a
supreme name; (3) if my understanding of Philippians 2:6 is correct, then the giving
of God’s personal name to the one who always existed in the form of God and is
equal to him is a natural outcome; (4) κύριος creates a symmetry in the hymn: the
one who is θεός (2:6), becomes δοῦλος (2:7), then exalted as κύριος (2:11).317 Since
God declared in Isaiah 42:8 that “I am the LORD (κύριος), that is My name; I will not
give My glory to another, . . .” (NASB), then it means that this name is so special
that he would not give his name to another, except to the one who is his equal.

Rachael Tan Conformity to Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Paul's Perspective on Humiliation and Exaltation in Philippians 2:5-11 2017, page 95.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1218
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by Barry Hofstetter » April 8th, 2018, 10:34 pm

διό inferential conjunction (διʼ ὅ; s. B-D-F §451, 5) (Heraclitus, Thu.+) therefore, for this reason Mt 27:8; Mk 5:33 v.l.; Lk 7:7; Ac 15:19; 20:31; 25:26; 26:3; 27:25, 34; Ro 1:24; 2:1; 13:5 (RBultmann, TLZ 72, ’47, 200 would omit the two last verses as glosses); Hb 3:7, 10; B 4:9; 1 Cl 7:2; 9:1; AcPlCor 1:16 al. διὸ καί (B-D-F §442, 12; 451, 5) therefore … also, denoting that the inference is self-evident (Jos., Ant. 19, 294) Lk 1:35; Ac 10:29; 24:26; Ro 4:22; 15:22; 2 Cor 1:20; 5:9; Phil 2:9; AcPlCor 2:8 al. P72 reads διʼ οὗ, w. ref. to Christ 2 Pt 1:12.—EMolland, Διο: Serta Rudbergiana ’31, 43–52. See διότι 2.—M-M.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

I agree with Stirling. διό is drawing an inference or conclusion based on the completed actions of the verbs in the preceding verses. The exaltation theology here is very similar to Matth 28:18-20, and I wonder if we shouldn't take ὄνομα too literally here, but rather in the broader sense of "authority" implied also in that context?
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

daveburt
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2017, 11:18 pm

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by daveburt » April 9th, 2018, 1:09 am

Bobby, 'because of but not after' seems logically possible (defended philosophically in Eleonore Stump, The God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers, and I think the Greek terms could bend that way), but a much unlikelier reading than the more obvious inclusion of temporal reference in this smile-shaped (up-down-up) story.

M-M and LSJ back you on not taking 'ὄνομα too literally' Barry:
M-M wrote:ὄνομα 3686 (2) By a usage similar to that of the Heb. שֵׁס, ὄνομα comes in the NT to denote the character, fame, authority of the person indicated (cf. Phil 2:9f.; Heb 1:4).
LSJ wrote:ὄνομα II. name, fame
Your suggestion reminded me of Gen 12:2 "μεγαλυνῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου" and another example of a similar "reputation" usage is in Rev 3:1: "οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα ὅτι ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς".

On a tangent, M-M has a different view on Mt 28:19, under ὄνομα 3686 (5) a payment 'to the account of any one':
M-M wrote:The usage is of interest in connexion with Mt 28:19, where the meaning would seem to be “baptized into the possession of the Father, etc.” See further Deissmann BS pp. 146f., 197, and W. Heitmuller’s monograph Im Namen Jesu (Göttingen, 1903), where (p. 100ff.) the phrase is claimed as good vernacular.
ὄνομα as name or title was discussed here a couple of years ago with reference to Heb 1:4 and Phil 2:9; Bill Ross makes the name 'κυριος' which is what Rebecca Tan goes with as well: Re: Name or title?. Their difference is the question Barry raises, how strictly is το ονομα κυριος εχαρισατο αυτω a 'name' (presumably the tetragrammaton itself) as opposed to a 'title', 'reputation', or 'authority'?
0 x

BobbyGarringer
Posts: 6
Joined: April 7th, 2018, 8:48 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by BobbyGarringer » April 9th, 2018, 11:20 am

My question was about the grammatical use of DIO and subsequent aorist verbs, on the assumptions that (restated more simply here) (1) "God had highly exalted Jesus and bestowed on him the name above every name - prior to - his obeying to the point of death" (2) his readers were fully aware of this and (3) God knew the outcome of Jesus' humiliation all along and explains his previous dual activities ("exalted highly" and "giving of the name above every name"). I see reasons why the first two of these hypotheses might be rejected. I'm not arguing the matter here. These are the hypotheses that we begin with. My question focuses purely on the grammar involved in light of the assumptions. If I read your responses correctly, i have a couple of examples of a "yes" response. Stated simply, what I need is either "under the assumptions, this is not grammatically possible" or "under the assumptions, this is grammatically possible."
0 x

daveburt
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2017, 11:18 pm

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by daveburt » April 9th, 2018, 7:19 pm

I'm not an expert, but I don't think either διό or the aorist indicatives ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο force the matter of time -- they're just past with respect to the writer/reader -- but your assumption (3, 1 in restatement) does.
0 x

BobbyGarringer
Posts: 6
Joined: April 7th, 2018, 8:48 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by BobbyGarringer » April 9th, 2018, 8:47 pm

It's not a matter of "forcing" the matter of time. Of course the aorists throughout the hymn are past to the writer and readers. But the question is: if both readers and writers knew that God had highly exalted and given an exalted name to the subject - prior to - the event of his death, could the inferential dio and its aorists be used in this context to express this? It may not be possible. If so, then someone should declare that is it not possible and tell me why. For now, it seems to me that - if DIO is purely inferential, with no temporal (or chronological) implications - perhaps it is possible.
0 x

BobbyGarringer
Posts: 6
Joined: April 7th, 2018, 8:48 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by BobbyGarringer » April 9th, 2018, 10:38 pm

Another way of asking my question would be: what if Ephesians 4:7 that has an aorist "gave," ἐδόθη [Ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ⸀ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ.] were followed by an aorist for "says" in verse 8 [διὸ λέγει· Ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ⸀ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.]

The Scripture "said" in the διὸ-phrase of verse 8 - before - the gifts were given as stated in verse 7.

λέγει is present tense in verse 8, but what if it were aorist? Wouldn't it convey the same idea (with perhaps a little stronger emphasis on the act of "saying")?
0 x

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1218
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Use of DIO in Philippians 2:9

Post by Barry Hofstetter » April 10th, 2018, 11:34 am

BobbyGarringer wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 10:38 pm
Another way of asking my question would be: what if Ephesians 4:7 that has an aorist "gave," ἐδόθη [Ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ⸀ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ.] were followed by an aorist for "says" in verse 8 [διὸ λέγει· Ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ⸀ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.]

The Scripture "said" in the διὸ-phrase of verse 8 - before - the gifts were given as stated in verse 7.

λέγει is present tense in verse 8, but what if it were aorist? Wouldn't it convey the same idea (with perhaps a little stronger emphasis on the act of "saying")?

διό simply shows that the what follows it is a consequence or inference of the what precedes it. These actions occurred in A, therefore (διό) this occurred in B. While your reading of the text might be possible from a macro-hermeneutical viewpoint, the Greek itself does not necessarily support it.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Post Reply