Question: the title "Lord"?

[Jane Hakes]

Someone in our home group has asked why we use the term "Lord". He insists it's a medieval term that is used for someone who has a fiefdom. I would like to know how to answer him. I know the term is used in every English translation and every book of the Bible. Personally I feel it is because we attribute all the attributes of a Lord (supreme, authority, etc.) to God, but has anyone ever questioned it? This person does tend to pick at things (he also questions the term "slave" used by Paul, just as an example), but most of the time I just kind of shrug and say it's common usage. Can someone please help me to do a better job of explaining this?

Thanks for any advice.

 

[Dave-W]

It has great historical precedent. Somewhere about the time of the destruction of the first temple, the proper pronunciation of the Hebrew word spelled yud hay vav hay (the Tetragramaton, proper name of God) was lost. In English translation it has been rendered Jehovah, Yahweh, or LORD.

After coming back from the Babylonian exile, the word Adonai was substituted. Literal meaning: my Lord.

So the substitution of "Lord" for the name of God was already well established by New Testament times.

 

[eleos1954]

Someone in our home group has asked why we use the term "Lord". He insists it's a medieval term that is used for someone who has a fiefdom. I would like to know how to answer him. I know the term is used in every English translation and every book of the Bible. Personally I feel it is because we attribute all the attributes of a Lord (supreme, authority, etc.) to God, but has anyone ever questioned it? This person does tend to pick at things (he also questions the term "slave" used by Paul, just as an example), but most of the time I just kind of shrug and say it's common usage. Can someone please help me to do a better job of explaining this?

Thanks for any advice.

The English Bible. There are, deeper explanations in regard to the Hebrew and Greek languages themselves. But as far as the English translations perhaps this will serve as a guideline.

When the Bible uses the word “lord,” sometimes it is all in capital letters (“LORD”), sometimes only the first letter is capitalized (“Lord”), and sometimes no letters are capitalized (“lord”). Why is this?

When you encounter the word in all lower case — lord — it is simply a reference to a human ruler.

When you encounter the word with the first letter only capitalized — Lord — it is either because it is at the front of a sentence or because it is a reference to one of the three divine Persons of the Godhead (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) or to the entire Godhead.

When you see the term entirely capitalized — LORD — it will be in the Old Testament and is translating the Hebrew word for the name of God — YHWH, or Yahweh (Biblical Hebrew has no vowels, only consonant letters). The reason for this is that the Ten Commandments forbid anyone to misuse the name of Yahweh, stating:

“You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not hold anyone who misuses his name guiltless.” (Ex. 20:7; cf. Deut. 5:11).

Slave(s)

There is forced slavery (wrong) and there is slavery that is not forced. Believers willingly and joyfully are slaves of Christ (serve Him). They have accepted (received) Him as their master (being a slave to Him) ... and want Him to do His will in us ... this of course is not forced slavery.

 

[RDKirk]

Someone in our home group has asked why we use the term "Lord". He insists it's a medieval term that is used for someone who has a fiefdom. I would like to know how to answer him. I know the term is used in every English translation and every book of the Bible. Personally I feel it is because we attribute all the attributes of a Lord (supreme, authority, etc.) to God, but has anyone ever questioned it? This person does tend to pick at things (he also questions the term "slave" used by Paul, just as an example), but most of the time I just kind of shrug and say it's common usage. Can someone please help me to do a better job of explaining this?

Thanks for any advice.

What is his actual objection? Is it the use of an English term rather than adonai as it would have been expressed by Jesus reading from scripture?

Or is his objection the concept of a lord--supreme, authority, et cetera?

What does he suggest otherwise?

 

[~Zao~]

There is forced slavery (wrong) and there is slavery that is not forced. Believers willingly and joyfully are slaves of Christ (serve Him). They have accepted (received) Him as their master ... and want Him to do His will.

That would be being faithful as a ‘little Christ’ by n/Name.

 

[Radagast]

Someone in our home group has asked why we use the term "Lord". He insists it's a medieval term that is used for someone who has a fiefdom. I would like to know how to answer him. I know the term is used in every English translation and every book of the Bible. Personally I feel it is because we attribute all the attributes of a Lord (supreme, authority, etc.) to God, but has anyone ever questioned it? This person does tend to pick at things (he also questions the term "slave" used by Paul, just as an example), but most of the time I just kind of shrug and say it's common usage. Can someone please help me to do a better job of explaining this?

These words are in the Bible. "Slave" translates the Greek word doulos, and "Lord" translates the Greek word kyrios (in Old Testament quotations this also refers to YHWH, the covenant name of God).

A good translation (like the ESV) accurately translates the words.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's not so much that the words (though yes, they are English translations) have infiltrated the text.

Yes, there were words used since before Christ that are best translated "Lord". The word is not improper in that sense. But if someone is bothered they can use the Greek or Hebrew.

But the concept of Lord in the Scriptures is not along the lines of English fiefdoms. That understanding laid over the Scripture HAS affected how the Scriptures are understood by some, and have affected some of the modern thinking about salvation, for example.

"Slavery" is another term that might not be wrong really, but the institution and status of slaves as spoken of in the NT is very different from what we might understand given more recent historical situations (which were very unfortunate). "Slaves" as we translate it had a status - they were more like persons attached to a house. They might in some cases be left in authority over all. They might inherit. And so on.

It is always good to understand the historical context to better understand - this is true in so many ways. And this is such a rich treasury it probably can't be fully learned in one lifetime.

But if it's just a matter of the more modern tendency to get offended over words, it's less helpful.

 

[Dave-W]

But if it's just a matter of the more modern tendency to get offended over words, it's less helpful.

If that is the case, they need to get over themselves.

 

[Radagast]

But the concept of Lord in the Scriptures is not along the lines of English fiefdoms.

Indeed, because the feudal system put limits on the power of a lord.

the institution and status of slaves as spoken of in the NT is very different from what we might understand given more recent historical situations (which were very unfortunate). "Slaves" as we translate it had a status - they were more like persons attached to a house. They might in some cases be left in authority over all. They might inherit. And so on.

Roman slavery was still a pretty rotten system, which is why the Church got rid of it. Paul speaks about the system as an unavoidable fact of life.

But Paul also uses the word doulos in relation to Christians (1 Corinthians 7:22, etc.). We are slaves of Christ.

 

[RDKirk]

But the concept of Lord in the Scriptures is not along the lines of English fiefdoms. That understanding laid over the Scripture HAS affected how the Scriptures are understood by some, and have affected some of the modern thinking about salvation, for example.

I would assert that most Christians in the world today don't have a grasp of the details of English fiefdoms, and that only a bit of Christian teaching will reveal what "lord" means in the scriptural context.

And that is probably the least of issues with regard to what words mean in the scriptural context compared to what they mean today. Take the word "study" for instance, which in the scriptural context means "pay attention to" or "take close regard of."

"Slavery" is another term that might not be wrong really, but the institution and status of slaves as spoken of in the NT is very different from what we might understand given more recent historical situations (which were very unfortunate). "Slaves" as we translate it had a status - they were more like persons attached to a house. They might in some cases be left in authority over all. They might inherit. And so on.

What difference does it make to one's salvation or one's role in the Great Commission? Scripture makes clear that if one is not a slave of man, one should not make oneself a slave of man. The character of slavery in any given period is not relative in the Christian context.

Again: What difference does it make to one's salvation or one's role in the Great Commission?

If it makes no difference in those two crucial areas for a Christian, then there is no difference. It falls into the category that Paul called "disputable matters" (Romans 14).

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would assert that most Christians in the world today don't have a grasp of the details of English fiefdoms, and that only a bit of Christian teaching will reveal what "lord" means in the scriptural context.

And that is probably the least of issues with regard to what words mean in the scriptural context compared to what they mean today. Take the word "study" for instance, which in the scriptural context means "pay attention to" or "take close regard of."



What difference does it make to one's salvation or one's role in the Great Commission? Scripture makes clear that if one is not a slave of man, one should not make oneself a slave of man. The character of slavery in any given period is not relative in the Christian context.

Again: What difference does it make to one's salvation or one's role in the Great Commission?

If it makes no difference in those two crucial areas for a Christian, then there is no difference. It falls into the category that Paul called "disputable matters" (Romans 14).

With regard to salvation - I didn't say that in relation to the word "slave" but rather to the word "Lord".

Some of the modern teaching that is more legalistic toward salvation (transactional rather than about healing and restoring the person) is based exactly in English feudal systems. At least that's how the framers of such theology explain it, so it's reasonable that was an influence on their thinking.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Indeed, because the feudal system put limits on the power of a lord.



Roman slavery was still a pretty rotten system, which is why the Church got rid of it. Paul speaks about the system as an unavoidable fact of life.

But Paul also uses the word doulos in relation to Christians (1 Corinthians 7:22, etc.). We are slaves of Christ.

Just ftr - I wasn't defending Roman slavery, and it has some particularly distatesteful aspects I didn't mention.

My point was just that if we appply a modern understanding in reading Scripture, we often miss in ways both small and great.

 

[Jane Hakes]

Thanks for all the replies! I'm going to print this all out and see if I can condense it into something that will satisfy him. This individual seems to pick out things to criticise and find contentious. I suppose there is often one in every group, but some of the others find this very confusing as he delivers his opinions with such conviction.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for all the replies! I'm going to print this all out and see if I can condense it into something that will satisfy him. This individual seems to pick out things to criticise and find contentious. I suppose there is often one in every group, but some of the others find this very confusing as he delivers his opinions with such conviction.

I hope everything that everyone has shared helps!

 

[luze]

Someone in our home group has asked why we use the term "Lord". He insists it's a medieval term that is used for someone who has a fiefdom. I would like to know how to answer him. I know the term is used in every English translation and every book of the Bible. Personally, I feel it is because we attribute all the attributes of a Lord (supreme, authority, etc.) to God, but has anyone ever questioned it? This person does tend to pick at things (he also questions the term "slave" used by Paul, just as an example), but most of the time I just kind of shrug and say it's common usage. Can someone please help me to do a better job of explaining this?

Thanks for any advice.

Your right its one having power and authority over others if it's capitalized meaning God or Jesus but it has many meanings

 

[Knee V]

"Lord" is simply the head of a house/estate. It is very old, and was originally "loaf ward", meaning "bread guardian", i.e., the one in charge of the house. Eventually the "f" sound disappeared from the word, giving us our current pronunciation. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a fiefdom, and it predates that very idea.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Thanks for all the replies! I'm going to print this all out and see if I can condense it into something that will satisfy him. This individual seems to pick out things to criticise and find contentious. I suppose there is often one in every group, but some of the others find this very confusing as he delivers his opinions with such conviction.

I get it. While reading parallel Bibles on Bible Hub, I was not happy with the NASB calling big sea animals "monsters" and the HCSB saying land animals "creep" on the ground. In modern English, those words are closely related to Halloween, which is a devilish holiday.

 

[GodLovesCats]

"Lord" is simply the head of a house/estate. It is very old, and was originally "loaf ward", meaning "bread guardian", i.e., the one in charge of the house. Eventually the "f" sound disappeared from the word, giving us our current pronunciation. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a fiefdom, and it predates that very idea.

That definition only apples to lowercase letters. Uppercase, it always means GOD.

 

[Knee V]

As far as the KJV goes, I agree. The OP was about the origins of the word, and that's all I was getting at.

That definition only apples to lowercase letters. Uppercase, it always means GOD.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It is not just the KJV Bibles. The NIV also capitalizes all four letters throughout the Old Testament.