Sure.
I can't think of an instance where Jesus is explicitly called YHWH. This, of course, does not mean that he isn't.
Indeed, and this is precisely why it is too "narrow" to think solely in terms of
names to resolve the "Is Jesus God" question.
Another way to solve this is to look at the
narrative structure, or at least at relevant subsets of it. As I have argued in detail elsewhere, I suggest the following:
1. There is a clear Old Testament theme where God, yes
God, promises to
return to the people and the temple He has abandoned.
2. In the book of Luke, Jesus, yes
Jesus, acts in a way that makes it clear that Jesus thinks He, yes He (Jesus) is the fulfiller of these promises.
3. If we agree that Jesus is mentally competent, we must conclude that He believes Himself to be God.
If some person who goes by the
name "God" says "
I will do such and such in the future", and then some person who goes by the
name "Jesus" later says "
I am the person who is fulfilling those promises that God has made", then we must conclude that Jesus is setting Himself in some kind of identity with God.
The "name" thing is a smokescreen - we do not need Jesus to be explicitly "named" as YHWH to
otherwise (e.g. through analysis of the narrative) come to the conclusion that He is.
With all due respect, the "name" argument reminds of the argument that "its OK to smoke since smoking is not "named" (explicitly) as sin". Both that view, and the view that we demand Jesus be
explicitly named as "God" represent an overly simplistic "Sunday School type" approach to understanding the scriptures.