spin

I have brought this up a number of times and every time I do it seems I have to start fresh. Sigh. I will try one more time. I would really appreciate that those people who haven't grasped the distinct uses of κυριος that I have so far unsuccessfully attempted to clarify to work with me. If you don't understand anything in the following

[HR=1]100[/HR]

Lord and THE LORD

The basic range of significances of the term κυριος according to Liddell & Scott:

1. (someone) having power or authority over

2. lord, master, eg head of a family, master of a house.

This is the normal noun that indicates a simple power or status position. The "lord of heaven" is an example and it certainly refers to god when found in the bible. The "lord of the land" in Gen 42:30 certainly does not refer to god. Look through these. In spoken conversation "lord" is a sign of respect as is "my/our/their/his lord". As an indication of power or esteem it is used as a title. Try these for example. "My lord Jesus and "the lord Jesus" are examples of this usage. The title is used with the name.

There is also a usage of κυριος, which has come to be outside the usual range of significances of the term, when it is used as instead of a name, ie the name doesn't occur, but is implied solely by the use of the κυριος. This is the case in the LXX the non-titular unqualified use of κυριος is used only for god, just as the British use "the Queen" for Elizabeth. Nobody else in the LXX is referred to in the third person as "the lord". In the LXX it is in fact used instead of god's name which it is believed became too sacred to use. This language usage is part of the linguistic background of Paul's cultural world and we must recognize this.

The distinction between the titular usage and the name substitute is clearly demonstrated in the LXX of Ps 110:1, ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου ("said the lord to my lord"). "My lord" is an easy clue that the term is being used as a title.

Hopefully, the separation is easy to understand. A few easy indicators:

1. it has a possessive pronoun attached, then its a title (my lord);

2. it is followed by a name, then it is a title (lord Jesus);

3. it is followed by a qualifier (usually "of something"), then it is the simple noun (lord of the land).

When there are no contextual indicators, as in "the lord said" and "ignored the lord when...", then we are dealing with the usage reserved for god in the LXX--let's call it the "special κυριος"--, where it is used in lieu of the name of god. This is Paul's heritage.

[HR=1]100[/HR]

Jesus and god in Paul

The relationship between Jesus and god in Paul's writing is worth noting. Paul is not a binitarian (or trinitarian): he does not think Jesus is god. When he says "yet for us there is one God, the Father, ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 8:6), he is blatantly clear that he does not think Jesus is god. (And note the notion "one lord", obviously not in lieu of a name, for one succeeds it, but a simple recognition of authority.) When Paul says that that "Christ Jesus... is at the right hand of god" (Rom 8:34), he indicates that Jesus is not god. Can he be confused with "the God and Father of the Lord Jesus" (2 Cor 11:31), "the God.. of.. Jesus"? Paul also says, "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9), indicating a clear delineation of roles. God raised Jesus. There is wiggle room with "the father raised Jesus", but here there is none. For Paul Jesus is not god.

However, Jesus is the representative of god, so that someone who obeys Jesus obeys god as well. Someone who is a freedman to Jesus is a freedman to god. To have faith in Jesus is to have faith in god as well. This only follows from the relationship between god and Jesus. One can see "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ".

This relationship between god and Jesus must be kept in mind when trying to understand Paul's discussions of the two, for it can be confusing, especially to christians who are usually brought up to confuse the two entities, as part of their confession of the trinity. The representative received language that is appropriate for the represented, but to Paul they are distinct entities and the reader must try to follow his discussion while maintaining the distinction.

[HR=1]100[/HR]

Who is κυριος?

With some knowledge of the linguistic background to Paul's language and a little knowledge as to the relationship between god and Jesus, we should be able to look at Paul's usage of κυριος with respect to both god and Jesus.

I have acknowledged two cases where the special κυριος is certainly used for Jesus, 1 Cor 6:14 ("14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.") and 1 Cor 11:23-27 (the retelling of the Lucan last supper, see my blog). Along with the second case there is a certain interpolation of κυριος at 11:29 which is demonstrated by the manuscript tradition, ie κυριος was inserted later. We have an indication that a later scribe interpolated κυριος into the Pauline text. I have argued elsewhere that both these cases of κυριος in lieu of the name of Jesus are in fact interpolations as well. However, we first need to look over the entire range of Paul's usage to have the clearest understanding of the non-titular use of κυριος.

If we go over the list of examples of κυριος in the verses provided by TedM here, we should be able to eliminate nearly all of them, as they don't reflect the special κυριος. When TedM says "All references in Romans 16 to "in the Lord" are arguably to Jesus", is that of any value?

Can you find examples in the corpus of Paul's "genuine" letters beyond the two in 1 Corinthians I have already mentioned that you can guarantee must refer to Jesus (as in the case of god raising the lord and the blood of the lord)? Try to use the criteria I have given above and consider the way Paul writes, assuming a relationship between god and Jesus.

[HR=1]100[/HR]

The possibility that Paul could routinely use the special κυριος for both god and Jesus with no explicit means of distinguishing them seems utterly absurd to me. That Paul, who shows he doesn't believe that Jesus is either god or a god, would use the LXX special κυριος means of referring to god, seems against religious behavior of the time when respecting the rhetoric regarding god was essential.

Although Paul saw that the relationship between Jesus and god was overtly special, Paul appears to be writing at a time before Jesus was seen to be god. This should discourage readers from seeing him likely to use a term once used solely for god with Jesus.

However, the later christian rhetoric clearly uses the special κυριος for Jesus, which may be due to the rhetorical influence of the mystery religions in circulation in the near east at the time, each of which had its lord. This later christian use feeds back into the interpretation of Paul, confusing his terminology and leading to the problem we are facing, the distortion of Paul's notions because people are wrongly using the later understanding of the special κυριος as Jesus, when it is not appropriate. This state of mystification of Paul is the norm today.

spin

I was disturbed while writing so I left the following unfinished:

... above, let's get it out and examined. I've been through this subject more times than I had ever hoped and would like to see either that I can communicate the idea with clarity or put it out to pasture.

So, if you can, try to work with me on this and assume that the notion of the special κυριος is potentially functional. Forget about "our lord" and "the lord Jesus", as not examples of the special κυριος. How can Paul, who doesn't believe in a trinitarian Jesus, use the LXX's special κυριος for both god and Jesus, especially when there are no contextual indicators to securely distinguish them (except in the problematic cases of 1 Cor 6:14 and 11:23-27)?

TedM

Spin, thanks for writing this out in this organized way.

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense but I have some issues with it. The first one has to do with your comments regarding how Paul sees Jesus as different from God. Clearly he does. However, while I see why it therefore would seem to not make sense to refer to both Jesus and God as "the Lord" in lieu of their names, I don't think it necessarily follows. As long as the context provides clues as to which one he is referring to I see no reason why he couldn't refer to both.

Before I look more closely at Paul's writings, I checked out Mark and Luke's use of "the Lord" as well as how they portray the relationship between Jesus and God.

Mark and Luke both have references to God and Jesus as "the Lord". Luke has many more references to Jesus as "the Lord" than Mark. But both of them appear to see Jesus and God as two distinct entities, similarly to Paul. In fact they both refer to Jesus as seated next to God, as Paul did. Here are some references to illustrate the relationship Jesus has to God in them:

Mark 11:3
If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.”

Mark 8:38
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 13:32
But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.


Luke 1:32
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;


Luke 9:20
And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.”

Luke 9:26
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

Luke 10:22
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

Luke 22:69
But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

Luke 22:29
and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you

Luke 22:70
And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”


Luke 23:35
And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One.”


If Mark and Luke see Jesus' relationship to God similarly to the way Paul saw it, but they can refer to both God and Jesus as "the Lord", why couldn't Paul also have done so?

hjalti

I must've missed the reference in Mark. Where is it?

TedM

11:3 -- first one listed

spin

I seem really to have confused you. This thread is according to its name about the use of κυριος in Paul. The whole o.p. discusses the significance of κυριος in relation to Paul. I tried very hard to make it clear that this is a specific topic only related to a Pauline analysis, as against your more generic thread about the significance of "the lord". To narrow the scope because that is what I have generally been working to clarify is the fact that Paul is at the beginning of the literary tradition preserved by christianity and thus has received no from earlier christian writers so his literary context is pre-christian and that his use of κυριος should either reflect his use of that context. Examining gospel usage has no chance of having a meaningful impact on the usage in Paul, as the gospels display layers of tradition that imply a definite christian cultural heritage unavailable to Paul.

Did I manage to communicate my problem with your post?

[ETA: see the comment on most of this post of yours in your "lord" in the NT thread.]

aa5874

You are WRONG. It is without any reasonable doubt that the Pauline Jesus was considered God the Creator from heaven.

1. The Pauline writers did state that Jesus was EQUAL to God.

2. The Pauline writers did state Jesus was in the Form of God.

3. The Pauline writers did state that Jesus is the IMAGE of God.

4. The Pauline writers did state that Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

5. The Pauline writer did state that Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth.

6. The Pauline writers did state that Jesus is God's Own Son.

The Pauline Corpus is about Jesus, the Son of God the Creator of heaven and earth.

Romans 15:6 KJV---That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:3 KJV---For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Galatians 2:20 KJV---I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me

Philippians 2.6 KJV---5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

1 Corinthians 15:47 KJV----The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Colossians 1 KJV 1---- 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created , that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist .

Ephesians 4:13 KJV----Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV---And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

TedM

Yes. It is a cleaner approach, though I think my observation has some merit. I'll respect your wishes though.


Ok.

aa5874

Spin's argument is completely baseless and actually unsupported by the very Pauline Corpus.

Let us continue to examine Galatians.

The word "God" is found in 31 verses of Galatians.

There is no mention of the word "Lord" in 29 of those verses.

The ONLY 2 verses that mention the 'Lord' refers DIRECTLY to Jesus.

Look for the word "Jesus" in Galatians.

There are 17 verses with the word 'Jesus'

There are 4 verses of the 17 with the word 'Lord'.

The word "Lord" is directly linked to Jesus in all 4 verses.

Look for the word 'Lord' in Galatians.

There are 7 verses with the word 'Lord'.

4 of the 7 verses refer DIRECTLY to Jesus.

2 of the remaining 3 contextually refer to Jesus.

The remaining one refers to Jesus indirectly.

Now, look for the words God, Jesus and Lord in the same verse.

There are 2 verses with the words God, Jesus and Lord.

In all 2 verses the word "Lord' refers DIRECTLY to Jesus.

Spin's argument that "Lord" by itself refers to god in the Pauline Corpus is hopelessly upside and back to front.

In the Pauline Corpus, the NT and the Jesus cult--Jesus is Lord.

Philippians 2 Jesus Christ was given the a name above every name in heaven, earth and under the earth in the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus Christ is LORD of ALL.

TedM

I would tend to agree. But it is possible to use both (as do the Gospel authors) while still distinguishing which is meant. And given that Paul refers to "the Lord Jesus Christ" well over 100 times, it seems likely that he would reference Jesus as "the Lord" on occasions -- if his readers knew who was meant. Perhaps that is what he does. We can't use 1 Cor 9 or Gal 1:19 as evidence of the ambiguity neither of us would expect because those wouldn't be ambiguous to his readers. Are there any passages which if you assume "the Lord" could refer to either God or to Jesus we can with certainty say that his readers would be unable to distinguish who is meant? That's the real question. It isn't whether WE can distinguish it. Paul wasn't writing to us. IF there aren't any such passages then what seems absurd didn't happen.





Ok, I weeded out ones that clearly don't fit your criteria, and the 2 you already discussed and consider to be interpolations. Here's what remains:




Since "He" in verse 9 points back to Christ and not God, "the Lord" in verse 8 would seem to be Christ and not God.


It seems to be referring to Christ, mostly likely, as the judgement is done THROUGH Jesus (see Romans 2:16, 2 Timothy 4:1), and it is Jesus who comes (11:26, 2 Thess 1:8-10)



"the Lord" and "Christ" are seem to be used interchangeably here:



The close proximity of "the Lord" to "Jesus our Lord" seems to link the two together.



(see Luke 10:8). The use of the word 'directed' sounds like it was a teaching from 'the Lord' directed specifically for those who preach the gospel, and not an indirect application of OT teachings or temple practices.


Thanks, Ted