1

Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one (οὐδεὶς) knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:11-13 NKJV)

"No one" is οὐδεὶς; is the same as used to describe a similar "lack of knowledge:"

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one (οὐδεὶς) knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)

What is the reason only the Son Himself knows this Name?

10
  • 2
    When the Bible uses the words no one, none, nobody, etc., does it usually include God ? – Lucian May 14 '20 at 14:13
  • @Lucian Is He God? And how is the Word intended here? – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 14:15
  • 2
    This has nothing to do theology, but with the use of language. – Lucian May 14 '20 at 14:18
  • 1
    @Lucian Your comment about the meaning of "no one, etc..." is driven by language or theology? Perhaps you can explain the difference in an answer. – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 14:26
  • 1
    The translation you quoted is not the only English translation (in case English is your only language). Even if there would be no other English translations, you can always search that specific version for other occurrences of the words none, no one, nobody, etc. and ask yourself whether including God in its meaning would make any logical sense whatsoever (e.g., Deuteronomy 34:6). – Lucian May 14 '20 at 14:32
2

"No one" is used by Jesus (and evidently John), as you yourself cite, to refer to the entirety of creation - anyone who is not the omnipotent God:

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour no one [οὐδεὶς] knoweth: not the son, nor the angels of heaven, but only the Father.

Therefore, it necessary, or at least possibility, excludes God.

0

I don’t think it was a lack of knowledge as to why Christ didn’t know his name. Here is what I think. In Rev 2:17 we have a similar reference to us (the church/Body of Christ/overcomer) given a white stone with a name which no one knows except our self. In the time of Christ public games were played called Isthmian games, kind of like our Olympics, the conquerors in the public games were given white stones with their names in them, which entitled them to be supported the rest of their lives at public expense. The king at that time would have been the issuer of the stone. Let me put it all together. To gain entrance into the New Jerusalem we must have our white stone with our personal name given to us by Jesus. We in turn will also know the unknown name of Jesus which you are referencing in your question. Have a blessed day.

1
  • There is no reference in scripture, most of all not by John the apostle, to the historic matters you mention. Therefore, how would John expect us to know such detail, if he had not included it in his book ? Nor have you, yourself, documented it by reference or citation, therefore it becomes your opinion. – Nigel J Jun 26 '20 at 3:08
-1

Why doesn't the FATHER know the NAME which was written?

Of all the names/titles associated with Jesus (I-e-sous), or Yeshua, even from before his birth: Immanuel, meaning "God is with us" (Isaiah 7:14); Son of God; Word of God; Faithful and True (Rev, 3:14); KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS (Rev, 19:16), there is but one other name that could be associated with him, that only he himself, AND THE FATHER, would know, that is necessarily know, the meaning of this name being: "WHO IS LIKE GOD", and this spiritual personage is not unknown to us. The name is mentioned several times in both the OT and the NT, but not in association with Jesus and yet we could very well be talking about one and the same.

'MICHAEL THE GREAT PRINCE' - Who Is He?

The spirit creature Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible, but when he is, the context is always dramatic. In Daniel we see him fighting (as one of the foremost princes) wicked angels on behalf of God's people (Dan, 10:13,20,21) In Jude he is disputing with Satan over the body of Moses (Jude 1,9). And in the book of Revelation he casts Satan and his demons down to earth (Rev, 12:7-9). Evidently, Michael is a key figure in heaven. Hence, it is proper to wonder, Who is Michael?

Since Michael is a champion of God's people, there is reason to identify him with the unamed angel that God sent ahead of the Israelites hundreds of years before: " Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him." - Exodus 23:20,21 NWT

It is not, entirely, illogical to conclude that this may have been the angel that delivered so many important messages to God's people. (Acts 7:30,35; Judges 2:1-3). The same had full authority from God to act in His name.

Consequently, is there anything here to make us believe that Michael and Jesus Christ are the same person?..... Well, Jesus is called "the Word". He is God's (chief) spokesman........

MICHAEL STANDS UP

"And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." - Dan, 12:1 NWT

Daniel, in chapter 11, had just described the march of world powers from his own time and on into the future. Two of the resulting political entities - the King of the North and the King of the South - would vie for ascendancy and control over God's people. At the climax of that rivalry, Michael would "stand up". What does this mean?

Well, in other parts of this same prophecy, the term "stand up" (arise in the NASB) means that the person ... assumes authority to rule as King (Dan, 11:3,4,7,20,21). Hence when Michael, 'stands up' he, too, starts to rule as a King. Consider the implications of this.

Before Daniel died, the last Jewish King, Zedekiah, had been deposed. There would be no Jewish king for centuries to come. Daniel's prophecy showed that one day, in the future, God's people would once again have a king - Michael.

Ezekiel, Daniel's contemporary, foretold the coming of one "who has the legal right" to rule again as king of God's people (Ez, 21:25-27), namely, Jesus Christ, who was to be anointed by God to rule as king in a heavenly kingdom (Luke 1:31-33; 22:29,30; Psalm 110:1). It is therefore only logical to say that Jesus and Michael are the same person. Hence, in the climax of one prophecy, Jesus becomes a king. In the other prophecy, Michael becomes a king. And, since both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event, surely it is reasonable to conclude that they are also dealing with the same person.

THE ARCHANGEL

In Jude 9, we see the designation "Archangel" given to Michael. In fact he was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the authoritative scriptures, nor do these scriptures use "archangel" in the plural. "Archangel" means " Chief of the angels." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Among God's spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. (Matt, 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7). This too argues that Jesus and Michael are the same.

Interestingly, the name of Jesus is linked with the word "archangel" in one of Paul's letters. The apostle Paul writes: "The Lord (Jesus) himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet." (1 Thess, 4:16). The context places this event during "the presence of the Lord," when Jesus has started to rule as king. - 1 Thess, 4:15; Matt, 24:3; Rev, 11:15-18.

JESUS AN ANGEL?

Some object to identifying Jesus with the angel of Jehovah. For Trinitarians, of course, such identification poses a problem, since it shows conclusively that he is not equal to Jehovah God. Remember, though that the basic meaning of "angel" (Hebrew, mal-'akh'; Greek, ag'ge-los) is "messenger." As the "Word" (Greek, lo'gos), Jesus is God's messenger par excellence. Remember, too, that as the archangel, as well as "the firstborn of all creation," Jesus had the highest rank among the angels even before he came to earth, - Coloss, 1:15.

True, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews: "He (Jesus) has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Heb, 1:4; Phil, 2:9,10). But, this was after his having been here on earth. He was still the archangel and "the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev, 3:14).

Hence, the fact that Michael is the archangel, chief of the angels, the fact that he stands up to rule as King, and the fact that he takes the lead in casting Satan out of heaven at the time of the birth of God's Kingdom all lead us to just one conclusion:....

Michael, the great Prince, is non other than Jesus Christ himself. - Dan, 12:1.

NOTE

From my 2nd paragraph on, the above is an edited version, of a much longer narrative, taken from the "Watchtower - December 15, 1984", a xeroxed copy of which, has been in my possession for over 30 years. The impact it had on me has obviously been great. Whether or not, the readers of this post experience the same impact, is of small consequence to me, as I just felt compelled to share it. The Trinitarians amongst you, will most likely dismiss it, although I find it hard to believe that they won't at least ponder the possibility. Hopefully, I have not left out any truly important narrative, but then again there is always the option to further edit.

6
  • @ Revelation Lad- Excuse Me !! Would you like to explain why you initially accepted and then changed your mind ?? A down vote was then made at the same time as the reversal, which I have to assume was also you !!! – Olde English Jul 29 '20 at 5:05
  • I was working from my phone. I thought I had down voted your question since you failed to even address the primary issue: the Father's apparent lack of knowledge. When I saw my mistake I corrected it. Moreover, "Michael" is hardly the name no one knows but Himself, as your answer demonstrates. BTW comments automatically go only to person who posted the answer or question. If you want the comment to go to someone else you need to use @"user" So I never saw your comment until you posted one on my question. – Revelation Lad Jul 30 '20 at 23:24
  • @Revelation Lad-Let me get this straight. You initially "accepted" my answer (which upped my score by 15 pts) by mistake, as you had meant to just down vote me, so you had to reverse the "acceptance" and then down vote, all secretly. Do I have that right? And I did use @ "user" correctly, I thought. With regard to Michael, I was trying to point out that most Christians don't conflate Michael (the Archangel) with Jesus and that maybe they should. Then in my answer, I highlighted the " AND THE FATHER" in the 1st paragraph, to clumsily, I guess, emphasize that He would most definitely have known. – Olde English Jul 31 '20 at 0:19
  • "Secretly?" I guess so. Your answer might be suitable for Christianity SE because it is IMO largely JW doctrine. It is nonsense to say the name no one knows is Michael since that name is obviously known. Many sects which developed out of the unrealized excepted return of Christ (in the mid 1800's) would do well to consider that if the Scripture says no one knows...then no one knows. And when someone claims they "figured it out" clearly they 1) are wrong 2) don't believe what the Scripture says. – Revelation Lad Jul 31 '20 at 0:54
  • Also I did not get your first message. Not sure why. If you start with @ and use the first letter, the system will auto fill the rest of the name. – Revelation Lad Jul 31 '20 at 0:56
-2

In scripture some have been given new names by God. It signifies God’s blessing. (Ge 35:10)

Jehovah gives new names

And the nations shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory, and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall name (ASV, Isaiah 62:2)

In Revelation new names are “written” by God and given to the saints. Since he wrote the names on the white stones, when “no one knoweth” it but the recipient it does not exclude the one who wrote the name on the stone, God.

Rev 2:17 that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. To him that overcometh, to him will I give of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth but he that receiveth it.

Likewise God also is the writer of the name given the Son of God.

Rev 19:12 And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself.

The fact that Jesus receives a new name is consistent with his calling the God of Revelation "My God."

Re 3:12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

5
  • It would appear Revelation 3:12 describes The Word writing a name on someone. So at a minimum the Father and the Word would know the Name which was written. However, your assertion regarding the one on who the name is written is an unproven (and IMO likely incorrect) assumption. If the The Word of God writes a Name on a forehead, not only would the person be unable to see it, everyone else would. Perhaps you need to give what is described more consideration? – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 18:27
  • BTW does the example from Isaiah 62 imply YHVH and The Word are the same? What I mean is, who but God can truly give a person a new name? – Revelation Lad May 14 '20 at 18:40
  • Likewise God also is the writer of the name given the Son of God. - So what ? He is also the One to bury Moses. But, just like in that case, He then later forgot where He buried him, which is why the Torah says, in Deuteronomy 34:6, that no one knows his grave to this day, and, according to the OP's brilliant logic, that includes God as well. :-) – Lucian May 14 '20 at 21:22
  • 1
    This “question”... is sheer and utter nonsense. – Lucian May 15 '20 at 1:02
  • @ Revelation Lad You seem to word twiddle a bit when you fail to also acknowledge that the Son also said "I and my Father are one." in John 10:30. You seem intent on bifurcating the speaking God from His own WORD. Else, why did you stop your quote at verse 12. Even in the NKJV, verse 13 says, "He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God." There is no reason to imply that the Father was intended to be left in the dark as to this "name written" per verse 12. – Bill Porter May 22 '20 at 4:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.