The use of κυριος in Paul's letters

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

The use of κυριος in Paul's letters

Post by spin »

The Lord v. my lord

Over the years I have tried without success to convince people to be wary of identifying the "Lord", without qualification, as Jesus in Paul's letters. Despite phrases such as "my lord Jesus Christ", the logic for not identifying Jesus with "the Lord" stems from the usage of the Greek word κυριος in Jewish Greek texts, as evinced in the Septuagint (LXX). The most famous quote from Ps 110:1 used in the gospels, eg Mk 12:36, is:

"The Lord said to my lord..."

In both cases the Greek word for "lord" is κυριος, but the grammatical context makes it clear that we are dealing with two different meanings. The first is a substitute for the name of God, from YHWH in the Tanakh it becomes κυριος in the LXX. This usage is found in Paul's elder contemporary, Philo. The second is from ADWNY, a title of respect, also translated as κυριος in the LXX. Despite both YHWH and ADWNY being rendered as κυριος the context however involves indicators that κυριος is intended as a title, as in the case of "my lord".

Consider the English example in which two employees talk of "the boss". There is no need to add anything for both know the reference. Another person entering joins in and talks of "my boss" and a listener will understand the distinction. We must see the distinction between "the Lord" and "my lord".

Further, we are used to seeing the title in "the lord Jesus": "lord" is clearly not a name in this case. When κυριος reflects the name of God, it is unqualified, simply the "Lord". We have been so trained through later Christian thought to think of Jesus as the "Lord" though, that it is hard not to continue to do so. Yet the distinction is simple and clear in the LXX.

Consider Gen 24:12, 27, 42

"Lord God of my lord Abraham"
κυριε ο θεος του κυριου μου αβρααμ

Again, "my lord" tells you the reference is not God, but a title, here referring to Abraham.

Jdg 6:13, Gideon speaks to an angel,

"My lord, if the Lord is with us"
κυριε μου και ει εστιν κυριος μεθ ημων

1 Sam 24:10

"I will not lift up my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed"
ουκ εποισω χειρα μου επι κυριον μου οτι χριστος κυριου ουτος εστιν

And so on. There was no problem for the LXX translators in using these two meanings in close proximity. The expression was clear enough for them.

The LXX reflects the linguistic and cultural context Paul inherited: it is inconceivable that he did not understand these two meanings of κυριος. In fact, when he quotes Isaiah 28:11f in 1 Cor 14:21, he adds "said the Lord", an irrefutable reference to the God of the Hebrew bible.

These LXX examples should prepare us for passages that talk about both the lord Jesus and the Lord, as in the case of 1 Thes 4:1-6. Verses 1-2 talk of the Lord Jesus; verses 3-5 talk of God; and verse 6 refers to the Lord. Knowing the way the LXX (and the Hebrew bible) uses both "God" and "the Lord" seemingly interchangeably, is there any reason to think Paul isn't doing the same here?

Philo

Philo is quite helpful in providing background for some of Paul's theoogical language. For example, he describes two terms used to refer to the Jewish supreme being, κυριος and θεος. He makes this distinction:

"the title 'Lord' the power in virtue of which He rules, that of 'God' the power in virtue of which He bestows benefits", De Plantatione, 86

At the same time Philo has no trouble calling the Roman emperor κύριε Γάιε, "Lord Gaius".(Embassy to Gaius 356 (xlv)) This is a sign that Philo uses κυριος with the same two major meanings, as a reference to God and as a title or position of respect.

In Every Good Man Is Free, 104, Philo opposes servant/slave (δούλος) and lord (κύριος), which is reminiscent of Paul referring to himself as δούλος of Jesus Christ, who he often calls "the Lord Jesus Christ". κυριος in Paul's phrase marks a position of power and respect such as that of a slave owner, the opposite side of the coin to Paul the servant. By calling himself δούλος Paul acknowledges his position with regard to Jesus when he confesses "Jesus is lord".

As Paul frequently talks of God as the father, so does Philo.

"God the Father and Maker of all", De decalogo, 51
"God the father of all", De opificio mundi, 74
"God the father", Legum allegoria, 67

Philo was an older contemporary of Paul and his use of language as a Jewish philosopher potentially reflects the milieu in which Paul was trained in a way that later Christianity cannot. Paul was at the forefront of Jesus theology and perhaps the earliest writer on the subject. We have no Christian texts close to Paul's time to help us understand his language usage, yet Philo covers some of the same issues as Paul does and was writing perhaps a little earlier. He makes a better key to understand Paul than any other writer.

Not trinitarian

It is important to note that Paul was certainly no trinitarian. We have been indoctrinated to equate Lord with Jesus and Jesus as one aspect of the trinity along with the father, but the relevance of these ideas cannot be demonstrated regarding Paul's writings. In fact he saw God and Jesus as two separate entities. Consider 1 Cor 8:6,

"for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

Here we see Philo's equation of God and father. Beside noting "one Lord" with its count of "one" telling us that this is an ordinary noun (not a substitute for a name), Paul makes the distinction between the "one god" and the "one lord".

Rom 8:34 tells us that Jesus

"is at the right hand of God"

Note, not "the father", but "God". Jesus is distinct from God.

Rom 15:6 talks of

"the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Once again Philo's God and father. The father of the lord Jesus Christ is God. (See also 2 Cor 1:3, 1 Thes 3:13.)

1 Cor 1:3 reflects the same separation:

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Cor 3:23,

"and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God"

An analogous hierarchy is seen in 1 Cor 11:3b,

"the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

There are many more examples in which Paul distinguishes God and Jesus as separate entities, but we breeze past them without thinking of their implications because we are well-trained in trinitarian thought. Yet it's not strange to think of Paul as a non-trinitarian, as the notion only emerged as a point of conflict centuries later.

We should also note in passing that in all of the salutations at the start of his letters we find both God and Jesus, but the holy spirit doesn't rate a mention. Instead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost in Paul's letters, we find "Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ".

Issues

We've seen that it's easy to spot the descriptive use of κυριος: anything other than the simple "the Lord" will indicate we are dealing with the title, the position of power, the sign of respect that position dictates: "my lord", "one lord", "the/my/our lord Jesus".

Those who want to argue that Paul may use "the Lord", ie not as a title or sign of respect or position, but as a reference to both God and Jesus, might want to contemplate how one can tell when Paul, using "the Lord", is referring to God or the Lord? What does the term refer to in 1 Cor 10:31f? And how do you know? A writer, especially one like Paul, attempts to communicate clearly with his/her readers. A term that can refer to two different things without contextual clues leads to confused communication, but Paul's aim is to make sense to his readership. This can't happen if you don't know what a term he uses means. On practical grounds Paul's use of "the Lord" as a substitute for a name should be seen to refer to only one entity. (Any contrary usage, ie referring to Jesus when Paul's context indicates God, would suggest another writer at work.)

Some who would want to maintain that Paul always means Jesus when Paul uses "the Lord", must remember that 1 Cor 14:21 demonstrates that Paul actively uses κυριος to refer to God. And every LXX citation that mentions κυριος shows a passive use of the term for God, eg Rom 11:34 and 1 Cor 2:16.

Many people are certain that κυριος in 1 Thes 4:15 refers to Jesus. "For the Lord himself.. will descend from heaven..." But return to 4:14b, which tells us

1. "God will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus with him".

Translators reasonably use "died" instead of "fallen asleep", but they separate "through Jesus" from "fallen asleep", allowing for the equivocation that God through Jesus is bringing the dead, not God directly.

2. "through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died." NRSV

However, the expression "fallen asleep through Jesus" is parallelled in 4:16's "the dead in Christ", so the first translation of 4:14b above reflects the Greek and it makes clear that God is doing the bringing the dead. It is God who is coming, which a simple reading of 4:15 "The Lord himself.. will descend from heaven..." reflects the same action from a different perspective, the Lord in v.15 and God in v.14 are one and the same, just as we find in Philo's writings. (This doesn't exclude Jesus coming with God. In fact, 3:13 says that the lord Jesus is coming.) Further, the reference to "the day of the Lord" in 1 Thes 5:2 points back to Jewish texts, eg Obadiah 15, "For the day of the Lord is near..." It is the day that many of the prophets talk about.

All evidence points to "the Lord" referring to God in 1 Thes 4:15, not Jesus.

With few exceptions the Pauline letters use "the Lord" for diaspora Jews' reference to YHWH, as also evinced in Philo's works, and the title "lord" for Jesus. The difference in usage should be clear. Obviously "lord X" is a title, as is "the lord of Y". And the simple κυριος is a substitute for the name of God. Two of the exceptions are in passages that have already been argued to be interpolations, 1 Cor 6:14 and 1 Cor 11:23-25—which I think extends to v.27. (See William O. Walker, "Interpolations in the Pauline Letters", in The Pauline Canon, Stanley E. Porter ed., 2004 Brill, 193 and footnotes. For my analysis of 1 Cor 11:23-27 as an interpolation, see this post.)

A clear interpolation—through the addition of just one word, κυριου ("of the lord")—is found in 1 Cor 11:29.

"For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the body [of the lord]."

This κυριου is not in the early manuscripts according to Aland (the earliest is Codex Claromontanus, 6th C.) and not found in most modern translations, but seems to reflect the confusion of a scribe, who felt the need to clarify "body" in the verse as "the body of the lord", showing he didn't grasp Paul's argument to the Corinthians about them needing to think about their own bodies (before they eat Paul's meal), not "the body of the lord". The scribal confusion is understandable as Paul's criticism concerning the Corinthians abusing his ritual meal is disturbed by the Lucan passage about the last supper. This addition of κυριου in 1 Cor 11:29 is a small but significant interpolation, the insertion of κυριος demonstrating 1) the later use of κυριος for Jesus and 2) a willingness to make such alterations.

Paul's use of κυριος as a substitute for the name of God in Greek does not extend to Jesus. I recommend not to accept analyses of Paul that presuppose that the Lord equates to Jesus, such as Gal 1:19 referring to the brother of Jesus.


I don't want to field arguments on the above. I'd rather it stand by itself, though if there is anything unclear, I will try to clarify the thought.
Last edited by spin on Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:11 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The use of κυριος in Paul's letters

Post by spin »

On rereading this stuff after several hours I noticed quite a few things that needed clarification or expansion, so I've made numerous minor changes. Maybe more to come. Hoping the argument is clearer.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The use of κυριος in Paul's letters

Post by Jax »

Thank you!
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The use of κυριος in Paul's letters

Post by Irish1975 »

I don't want to field arguments on the above. I'd rather it stand by itself, though if there is anything unclear, I will try to clarify the thought.
@spin

Isn't it in the spirit of this forum to challenge and question, as well as clarify, each other's interpretations? I'm very interested in this topic, but I don't want to spend too much time if you really aren't interested in a discussion.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The use of κυριος in Paul's letters

Post by Irish1975 »

At any rate, here are some initial thoughts--

1. The relevance of Philo seems questionable. If you're right that Paul is in lock step with a LXX tradition of speaking about The Kyrios, that's one thing. But we can't presuppose that.

2. An examination of all relevant passages seems necessary.

3. Even if Pauline references to "The Kyrios" are special and unique, it must be somewhat relevant that in multiple texts (Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3, 2 Cor 4:5, Phil 2:11, Col 2:6) the apostle gives us the confession that Jesus is Lord. It's the cornerstone of the Pauline proclamation of faith. Likewise, the many passages in which God the Father is overtly named alongside of, and thus distinguished from, the Lord Jesus Christ (which you do mention, but interpret differently). It seems strange or ad hoc that the Father/Son or God/Lord duality in the Pauline epistles would simply collapse whenever the unqualified expression "The Lord" is employed.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The use of κυριος in Paul's letters

Post by spin »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:45 amthe confession that Jesus is Lord
I confess
Pilate is governor.
And Caiaphas is high priest.
And Jesus is messiah.
And Johanan is rabbi.
And even the sky is blue.
And grass is green.
But not Hillary is president.
Nor Biden is Trump.
Nor Van Damme is governator.

I've rewritten the section concerning Philo in the o.p. so there can be no equivocation.

And people can challenge or question anything they like. All I said was that I wasn't going to field any arguments. I've just clarified how "Jesus is lord" functions.
Post Reply