This morning I was thinking of two different approaches seen in biblical commentaries on the statement that Jesus is “Lord”. The most well known is that Jesus being Lord signifies that Jesus is to be identified with YHWH, called “Adonai” or “LORD” in Jewish writing. Being that Jesus is called “kurios” by the early Christians it is easy to equate him with the God of Israel.
But modern scholarship has seen this as merely messianic. The Caesars were called Lord but Jesus as the Messiah is the true king of the world so he is truly Lord. It is essentially a anti-Caesarian polemic. But does that negate the traditional view? I don’t think so.
Jesus is who Adam, Israel, Saul, David, and Solomon could not be…the real imago Dei. He is the true image of God amongst creation. He is the perfect regent King of the heavenly King. Therefore, he is a son of God unlike any before or after. He is the image of God unlike any who have been made like God. He is Lord unlike Caesar but more so. As the one who shared what it means to be God with the God of Israel only he can be true Lord, true regent, true image of God. Only one who mediated between God and humans can, as the early fathers wrote, make us like God. So Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not in one respect because Jesus actually embodies the God of Israel who is Lord.
the archives near Emmaus 
Hmmmmm. I’ll have to think this over. No doubt, Jesus is LORD in the New Testament. The problem is that YHWH=s LORD as a construct is an interpretation posing as a translation. YHWH can mean so many things, I am the One Who Will Be Present, I Am Who I Am (another translation,er, interpretation) or I Will Be Who I will be. So many directions one can go. I just can’t buy this argument, linguistically or otherwise; I used to, but I find it difficult even more so. I just stick with Jesus as the Word/Logos/Hokmah of God in the Hebrew Bible.
One important passage I have in mind would be 1 Cor 8.6 where Paul plays off of the Shema associating God as Father and Lord as Jesus Christ.
Rod: Could you elaborate what you mean by saying that YHWH = Lord is an interpretation posing as a translation? Are you referring to the translators of the LXX or the NT authors or someone else?
Brian: That’s a very significant passage and not only for how it reinterprets the Shema to include Jesus but also how it functions in 1Cor. 8:1–11:1 as a whole. The parallels between this section of 1Corinthians and Deuteronomy are amazing. When I think about the issue I think about all those YHWH texts that are quoted and applied to Jesus throughout the NT. I think there’s something to be said for how widespread a practice it was.
Nick,
Who would you say has done the best job at an exposition of Paul’s use of Deuteronomy in this passage?
Brian: Probably Erik Waaler in his The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians and Chris Tilling in his yet to be published dissertation “Paul’s Divine Christology: The Relation Between the Risen Lord and Believers in Paul and the Divine-Christology Debate.” Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner do a good job in their contribution to Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (which I think is better than Rosner’s solo contribution to Deuteronomy in the New Testament).
Great, thanks! Do you know when Chris’ is releasing his dissertation? Is it going to be published?
I have always been under the impression that he plans to publish it but I haven’t heard any news on what series he’s going with or when he’s going to publish. As soon as I do I’ll be certain to shout it from the rooftop, or, at least post about it on my blog. 😉
Sounds good!
What do you do with the NT quotes of the NT that apply kurios to Jesus but in the OT quote it is YHWH? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you.
@Brian,
There is no doubt on my part that Christ is the Son and Word of God, and that God being the God of the Hebrew Bible, YHWH/Adonai/Elohim, but I do think that it is quite a leap to go from Kurios to replace YHWH in a definitive sense. In other words, the reason behind the Jewish translators use of KUrios was to avoid using YHWH’s name in vain as part of the Jewish tradition. That contextual difference must be recognized before we go and randomly apply the apostles use of kurios to the LxX’s usage of Kurios. I stay with the apostles and church fathers, keeping the Logos/Word in the LXX/MT as the Son. We are quite limited in what we can do, in terms of knowing revelation in the OT/HB/LXX. That is part of the mystery of Christ, his origin and pre-existence.
It’s difficult to say unambiguously that YHWH=Kurios=s Christ in all passages of the First Testament for those reasons.
@Nick, my answer to Brian answers your question as well.
Sorry that was more for Rodney. I’m guessing that only adds to your argument, Brian.
@Rob,
What I try to do, for Kurios, is to recognize the immediate historical context of the apostles, that Kurios is a response to the claims of being Kurios by the Roman emperors.