From post 5:
It's time for you to shine forth your so-called light and let us know who the "Master" refers to in Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1.
Masters -- The lords (owners) over the slaves, cf Eph_6:9. In Graeco-Roman society, masters assumed complete authority over their slaves and could treat them any way they were moved to do. Paul urges masters who are believers to use their authority with concern; in God’s kingdom, they too are slaves, and God is their master (compare Eph_6:5-9)
And masters -- κυριοι you masters G2962. Col_4:1.This is still the same literary context as Eph_5:22 to Eph_6:9, which is Paul's domestic example of the Christian life in action.
do the same to them -- Show the same regard to God's will, and to your servants' well-being, in your relation to them, as they ought to have in their relation to you.
There should be mutual honor and respect from Christian employers to their employees, based on their common allegiance to the Lord.
stop [give up] your threatening -- This is a present active participle used as an imperative. The word literally means "to loosen up."
In Graeco-Roman society, masters had the right to treat slaves as they saw fit. Paul commands masters to set aside their rights and to instead treat their slaves with kindness as people who are equal before Christ (compare note on Eph 6:5).
kyrios G2962 [Lord, lord]
kyria G2959 [lady],
kyriakos G2960 [the Lord's],
kyriotés G2963 [lordship, dominion],
kyrieuó G2961 [to be(come) lord],
katakyrieuó G2634 [to lord it]
kyrios. Historically the concept of lordship combines the two elements of power and authority. A true realization of the unity of the two arises only in encounter with God, who creates us with absolute power but is also the absolute authority before which it is freedom rather than bondage to bow. In the biblical revelation the humanity that rejects subordination to its Creator meets the one who with the authority of God's ministering and forgiving love woos its obedience and reconstructs and reestablishes the relations of lordship.
A. The Meaning of the Word kyrios .
1. The adjective kyrios, from a root "to swell," "to be strong," means
a. "having power," "empowered," "authorized," "valid." The power denoted is a power of control rather than physical strength. Laws are valid, persons are authorized or competent, and rulers may have a powerful impact. A second meaning
b. is "important," "decisive," or "principal. "
2. The noun kyrios, rare at first, takes on two fixed senses: first, the owner, e.g., of slaves, a house, or a subject people, and second, the legal guardian of a wife or girl. Both senses carry the implication of what is legitimate. In Attic, however, despotes is a much more common word. In the Koine the two become almost interchangeable, although kyrios has a stronger element of legality and suggests more the power of disposal than of possession. The closer we come to NT times, the more emphatic the legal element becomes and the more kyrios tends to replace despotes. At first officials are not called kyrioi, but gradually the habit develops of attaching the word as a title, and the term is then used for philosophers, doctors, members of an audience, husbands (by wives), fathers (by sons), and finally even sons (by fathers). In the early period neither kings nor gods are called kyrioi ; the first use of kyrios for God is to be found in the LXX.
B. Gods and Rulers as kyrioi. The concept of God necessarily contains an element of legitimate power. If legitimacy is lacking, religion yields to fear of capricious spirits, whereas if power is lacking, the deity is a mere idea. The combination of might and right, however, involves personality. The Greek use of despotes for deity bears witness to a personal element, but the Greeks do not fundamentally regard their gods as lords, primarily because their view of God allows no place for the personal act of creation.
1. kyrios for Gods and Rulers in Classical Antiquity. The word kyrios is first applied to the gods as an adjective to describe their spheres of control. But the gods are not, as in Egypt or Babylon, the lords of these spheres. They are the forms of reality, not its creators or designers. With humans, they are organically related members of the same reality. For this reason, there is no personal responsibility to them; even prayer is fundamentally illogical. Religious disintegration results, therefore, when the gods are viewed in this way. The political implication is democracy, in which individuals freely give themselves to the right. Since, however, the right stands above them, and is not merely that which they decree, an impulse toward monarchy is present. The ruler has a special measure of virtue. As such he is inspired law, although not kyrios .
2. Gods and Rulers in the Near East and Egypt. In the Near East the gods are the lords of reality. They control destiny, and individuals, created by them, are responsible to, and may be punished by them. Rightly, then, they may be called lords. It is they who give the laws which rulers declare to their subjects and which subjects must simply obey. The Near East has a strong sense that laws need personal authorization. This leads to the cult of the ruler as the administrator of law who is closer to the gods and who may thus make unconditional demands on others. Personal confrontation with the gods stands at the heart of this understanding.
3. The Hellenistic kyrios .
a. Chronology. The use of kyrios for gods and rulers develops in the first century Β.C. At this time the phrases kyrios basileus, kyrios theos, and kyrios strategos come into common use. The available data from Egypt and Syria show that all this seems to happen within a single life span. It is probably the adaptation of an older Egyptian and Syrian development.
b. Location. In Egypt kyrios is used for various gods, and this usage spreads to Asia Minor, Crete, Italy, Rome, and Spain. In Syria a similar use develops for which there are parallels in Arabia and Spain. Other deities are called kyrios or kyria in Asia Minor and Italy (e.g., the Ephesian Artemis). It may be noted that the usage never becomes widespread. It is common only where it corresponds to native usage, and in Syria kyrios is comparatively much less common than its Semitic equivalent.
c. Tendency. While indigenous usage fixes the main content, a certain tendency may be discerned in the Greek examples. The term kyrios is not used for outstanding gods, nor only for those that are particularly venerated. It denotes a personal relationship, e.g., in petitionary prayer, votive dedication, or thanksgiving. kyrios denotes an order under which people stand and which is connected with the idea of dominion over nature and destiny. Correlative to kyrios is the term douos ( "slave"), which implies personal authority as well as relationship, but with a strong guarantee of protection as well (cf. Semitic names which contain the names of gods). In Egypt the concept of lordship gives stronger linguistic expression to the dominion of deity over nature, but there is no doubt that the transfer of kyrios to the gods on the basis of existing native usage takes place independently in Egypt and Syria.
d. Rulers. As regards rulers, phrases like kyrios basileus are adaptations of native usage which always seem alien to the Greeks and later drop away. In the imperial period kyrios becomes a brief summary of the emperor's position, mostly for the purpose of dating. We find it a few times under Nero but it is more common later, and after Trajan gradually finds its way into the full imperial style. It also occurs in the absolute (cf. Act_25:26), although at first the Latin dominus is shunned because of its obvious suggestion of absolute monarchy (cf. Augustus). Under the cover of democracy, however, a Near Eastern style of autocracy triumphs. This explains why the term kyrios establishes itself. Initially it has no connection with the emperor cult, but if the emperor is not kyrios as god, he can easily be god as kyrios, i.e., in virtue of his universal rule. Sometimes, then, we find the phrase dominus et deus. Nevertheless, this is not the main emphasIs Hence Tertullian can accept dominus in one sense and not another, and whereas the Zealots, for political reasons, cannot accept either, the Jews in general do not find it difficult to call civil rulers their kyrioi .
[W. FOERSTER]
C. The OT Name for God.
1. The Name for God in the LXX.
a. The LXX uses kyrios for the divine name Yahweh in an effort to bring out its meaning. Since the term has to be used for human lords too, or even as a respectful form of address, the effort is perhaps not wholly successful. Yet in the religious sphere kyrios is reserved for God. In this sense it is used regularly, i.e., over 6,000 times, and except in a few instances always for Yahweh in such forms as kyrios theos, kyrios ho theos, and ho kyrios theos .
b. Although a little capricious, the use or nonuse of the article seems to be meant to relate to the significance of the name. Whether or not kyrios is a creative attempt of the translators or the rendering of a Hebrew substitute like Adonai cannot be determined. Its justification derives less from ordinary Hebrew originals than from the divine name itself.
2. "Lord" as a Designation for Yahweh. In the history of the Bible the use of "Lord" has been no less influential than that of Yahweh. Like the usual Hebrew terms, it carries a recognition of the power of the divine will. The title corresponds to the divine nature. God is Lord of the land and people, but also of all things (Mic_4:13). In replacement of the divine name, or in addition to it, the term implies the divine majesty (cf. Isa_6:11; Eze_2:4, etc.). Why the term for Lord is completely substituted for Yahweh in later Judaism is not wholly clear, nor is it clear whether the LXX kyrios comes first or is a translation. It certainly has important missionary implications, for the witness to God as Lord shows that, as the Creator, God is the exclusive holder of power over humanity and the cosmos. The term Lord states in practice who God is and what he means for us as the one whose personal will intervenes with all the force that is the distinctive mark of the name Yahweh.
3. The Name Yahweh as a Concept of Experience. The OT belief in God is grounded in historical experience and develops in constant contact with history. The name Yahweh is thus distinguished by a specific content. God is not just any deity but a distinct divine person. This still applies even when he is more generally called Lord. Behind statements like "the Lord is God" (1Kg 18:39) or "the Lord is his name" (Exo_15:3) stand the more specific expressions "Yahweh (or Yahweh of hosts) is his name" There is encounter here with the definite person of God. Only Gentiles can make nothing of his name. While Yahweh may have been used in different ways before, in the OT it always has reference to a specific encounter. It is the name of the revealed God and leaves no room for speculation. Use of the name suggests the essential and indelible features of the picture of God which the biblical tradition paints in the inner history of his people.
4. The Mosaic Institution. Yahweh religion is an instituted religion. It is not a reformation of Canaanite animism but a new beginning. There is a prehistory in the stories of the patriarchs but Moses is the virtual founder of Yahweh religion. With him it truly enters the state of history and becomes a norm of conduct and a spur to political action. On the basis of God's revelation to him, the tribes come into a relation of covenant obligation. Their life is dominated by trust in the guiding will and power of the God who knows no natural restraint and who has proved his majesty at the exodus. A tradition of common worship begins at this time. Theophorous personal names come into use and the wars of Yahweh begin with the invasion of Canaan. With acceptance of the name Yahweh Israel makes an exclusive confession of God and puts itself under active obedience to his will (Exo_15:11; cf. Jos_24:16 ff.).
5. The Origin of the Divine Name. The name Yahweh is given by God himself in Exo_3:1-22. Whether Moses is the first to use it or it has been taken from tradition is hard to say. Parallels have been sought (cf. Ras Shamra and Egypt), and an original home of Yahweh has been postulated among the Kenites or in Edom. The only thing that is certain is that from the time of Moses the name has a new and specific content.
6. The Form and Manner of the Name Yahweh.
a. The form of the name presents problems even regarding the consonants, let alone the vowels, for variations exist in the tradition.
b. Attempts to interpret the name philologically produce no certain results. On the basis of the longer form we are possibly led to a root that might mean either "to fall" or "to be." On the basis of the shorter form we perhaps have an interjection, a cry to God. We are not even certain that the two forms are originally the same word, and in any case it is difficult either to relate them or to derive any definite meaning from them.
7. The Reasons for Reticence in Relation to the Name.
a. Interpretation is made harder by the fence that the tradition builds around the name. This reticence is due in part to the power that is associated with the name. The name epitomizes the person (cf. 1Sa_25:25). It is thus feared as God himself is feared (Dt. 25:58).
b. On the other hand, the bibilical authors, freely using the name, have a positive sense of the divine reality and power that protect them, so that it is only later, in redaction and translation, that the sense of distance grows.
c. Another contributory factor is the sense that the divine person is so unique that one cannot distinguish him from other persons by the simple method of using names.
8. The Name of God in the Account of Yahweh's Revelation to Moses (Exo_3:14).
a. In Exo_3:14, when Moses asks God his name, a puzzling answer is given which either tries to explain the name by alliterative paraphrase or seeks to avoid its use by close approximation to its form.
b. If it is an explanation, the name bears some reference to existence, although in what sense is not wholly clear.
c. The Hebrew certainly does not have the speculative profundity of the LXX rendering (ego eimi ho on ). There are also various linguistic arguments against etymological explanation, and the style of revelation is the least adapted for etymology.
d. The other possibility is that God is refusing to give a name that would make him merely one among the many gods of the period, although cf. 3:14b.
9. The Name Yahweh as the Basic Form of the OT Declaration about God.
a. OT statements about God take different forms and the constant link to history works out in different ways. The theme that God is Lord, however, is always the same. One can neither invoke him by magic nor influence him except as a servant. The revelation is that of the vital power of God oriented to salvation. Hence the name Yahweh is the sum of all that the OT says about God, and the figure of Yahweh is the original form of biblical revelation. If the name does in fact set Yahweh among the gods, so that under mythical pressure there is a felt difficulty in serving God or singing his songs in a foreign land (1Sa_26:19; Psa_137:1-9), and the rivalry of other gods causes recurrent crises of faith (1Ki 18:17ff.; 2Ki 21:3; Jer_2:28), nevertheless there is a strong sense of the uniqueness of Yahweh and a sharp rejection of the reality of false gods (Psa_58:1-11; Psa_82:1-8; Amo_5:26; Exo_20:3 ff.).
You agree?
