oJ ajjpovstolo" in Hebrews 3,1 259 say, the earthly son of the Davidic line, i.e., Jesus (cf. Heb 2,9) “becomes” the son of the prologue (32). This is the “name” which the “son” of the prologue has, paradoxically, “inherited”: the name of “son” who is the eternal son as risen/exalted (33). The above interpretation is much contested, of course. But every interpretation of this difficult material is much contested. It is sufficient for the purpose of the present note that what is given above is plausible in the context of the Christian tradition in which this note is written. The “son” who is the imprint of God’s inner being inherits the name of the one who as enthroned at the resurrection is the Messiah, i.e., the definitive “son” of the royal line of David. But the act of inheriting involves the eternal son’s (34) going through the earthly process of death and resurrection/enthronement. And in so doing the eternal son “inherited” the Christian meaning of “son”, i.e., the eternal son as dead and risen/enthroned. The matter is never presented in Hebrews using he term “Christian”, but in the context of what has preceded in this note, the use of the term “Christian” to define the son’s name which he has “inherited” is quite defensible. The way is now open to assessing the Christian name for God alluded to in Heb 2,12. It is, of course, the co-relative of “son”, i.e., “father”. And it is stated as such at Heb 1,5b (35). God “becomes” the Christian father at the moment when the eternal son “becomes” the Christian son (Heb 1,5a). All of this would be of no little interest in itself. But when placed in the context of the entire New Testament this interpretation of the “name” of God in Heb 2,12 assumes enhanced plausibility. For a case can be made that the center of New Testament theology is Jesus’ revelation of God as father (36). It would be well beyond the scope of the present note to rehearse in detail the arguments given for considering the center of New Testament theology as (32) Cf. SWETNAM, “Hebrews 1,5-14”, 56-57, especially 56, n. 21. (33) “Was Christus als Gottes Ebenbild besitzt und bezeugt, wird durch sein Erdendasein bewährt und bestätigt, durch seine Erhöhung dagegen vollendet und verwirklicht” (MICHEL, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 106, n. 1. “Eigenartig ist die Verbindung: ‘einen Namen ererben’. Es ist allein Gottes Wille, Gottes Gnade, die dem Sohn diese Stellung zuweist (‘Erbe’), die ihn über alle Mächte erhebt. Es geht hier im Hebr um den Sohnesbegriff, der nach 12 Jesus Christus immer zusteht (57f.!), der aber in 14 im Vollsinn dem Erhöhten zugesprochen wird …” (MICHEL, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 105). (34) “ … le participle present w[n [Heb 1,3], succédant aux aoristes e[qhken et e[poivhsen, ne marque pas seulement, comme ceux-ci, un acte, mais une relation permanente, éternelle, et exclut par suite l’idée d’une filiation adoptive du Christ par rapport à Dieu (C. SPICQ, L’épître aux Hébreux. II. Commentaire [EB; Paris 1953] 9). This is not to say that Hebrews is using the language of Nicaea I. But Hebrews is using language which can be interpreted as being fully compatible with Nicaea I. (35) “In the light of 1:5 one might suppose that God’s ‘name’ was ‘Father,’ but God’s fatherhood is assumed, not discussed, in Hebrews” (ELLINGWORTH, Hebrews, 168, with reference to God’s “name” in Heb 2,12). Exactly so. In Hebrews the father is known in and through the son who is the one who speaks (Heb 1,2). The father reveals himself in what the son “says” (lalevw), i.e., reveals in his speech. The name of “father” is held in suspense in Heb 1,1 where he is first introduced. The “son” is presented in such a way that his being mirrors the inner being of God (Heb 1,3) and thus his being serves as an understandable basis for his revelation of who God is. It is the son’s function to “reveal” this Christian name of God (qeov") by his “speaking” (lalevw). This is the setting for Heb 2,12. (36) Cf. D. FARKASFALKVY, “Jesus Reveals the Father: The Center of New Testament Theology”, Communio 26 (1999) 235-257.