I’m pleased to pass along the news that my article, “‘Lord LORD: Jesus as YHWH in Matthew and Luke,” has been accepted for publication in New Testament Studies. The article abstract is as follows:
Despite numerous studies of the κύριος [Lord] title in the New Testament, the significance of the double form κύριε κύριε occurring in Matthew and Luke has been overlooked, with most assuming the doubling merely communicates pathos. In contrast, this article argues that whereas a single κύριος might be ambiguous, the double κύριος formula always serves as a distinctive way to represent the Tetragrammaton outside the Gospels and that its use in Matthew and Luke is best understood as a way to represent Jesus as applying the name of the God of Israel to himself.
This is significant inasmuch as certain circles of scholarly orthodoxy have long held that, in contrast to the Gospel of John, Matthew and Luke do not represent Jesus as divine—or at least that Jesus never refers to himself as divine. This article challenges that perspective, suggesting that Matthew and Luke indeed identified Jesus with the name YHWH, much like Paul (Phil 2) and John.
30 Comments. Leave new
See also
“On The Bible” by Martin Buber how to enunciate YHWH
yahshanet.com
see also Romans from the Hebrew Perspective
I have explored your site as well as the New Testament Studies site and cannot seem to locate this article. I am anxious to read it.
Hi Sherri, that’s because it hasn’t yet been printed. It’ll be out in a few months. Sorry for the delay!
I am wondering why the difference between the terms “God” and “Elohim” (and it’s various forms) is invariably ignored in these discussions.
“God” is just a translation of “Elohim,” so distinguishing between those two terms wouldn’t make much sense.
Hello, Dr. Staples. I just discovered your site today. I can only find a ‘kurios-kurios’ pairing in the following verses: Matt. 7:21-22; 25:11; Lk. 6:46; Rev. 17:14; 19:16. In the Revelation occurrences, the second form of the word is a genitive-plural, indicating that the word-pair means “Lord of lords,” and not having any (immediate) link to YHWH. So when you say that “the double κύριος formula always serves as a distinctive way to represent the Tetragrammaton outside the Gospels” – what other verses are there, exactly?
(Also: Why isn’t the year posted alongside the month/day of a posting/comment?)
The Revelation occurrences aren’t the double kύριε formula in view in the article, though they are discussed. As you said, that combination is a simple and common combo that just means “lord of lords.” But the double kύριε used in the Gospels always specifically refers to the Tetragrammaton elsewhere. The article should be out in January if I remember correctly, so once it’s out all this should be clearer.
As for the year not being listed, I suppose that’s just not the standard setting for this web template.
Hello Dr. Staples. I am a layman trying to keep up with scholarship on the New Testament. I am interested in your research but I do not have access to the journal New Testament Studies and I otherwise can’t afford $25 for a paper. I wanted to ask if you’d be willing to send me a copy of the paper so that I could read it. Thanks for reading this comment.
Done.
Could you send it to me as well? I’m in the same boat.
Hello Dr. Staples. I would also just like to ask you some questions as your paper has come up in a discussion with someone else. Apparently, the term ‘Lord Lord’ is translated in the LXX, sometimes, from phrases in the Hebrew that do not come from Adoniah YHWH, but perhaps YHWH Elohim and others. For example, in the LXX, Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 10:17, and 1 Chronicles 17:24. What do you think is the significance of these passages on your paper? I’d love to hear your response. Also, I think kurios kurios is also used in the Apocalypse of Moses 25:3.
I appreciate your words and answers.
Hi Jimmy, good question. LXX Exodus 34:6 and Deuteronomy 10:17 don’t have κύριος κύριος, so they’re not really relevant here. What matters is what underlies the double κύριος when it appears.
1 Chron 17:23 is a more interesting example. The Hebrew there has a string of various titles: “YHWH Sabaoth, the Elohe of Israel, Elohim to Israel,” which the LXX translates “kurie kurie pantokrator theos Israel” (Lord LORD, creator of all, God of Israel). The Hebrew doesn’t have Adonai YHWH, but κύριε κύριε there definitely translates YHWH, which is what really matters there—it’s another example of the double κύριος unambiguously marking the divine name YHWH.
And yes, Apoc. Mos. 25:3 has the double κύριος; the article addresses that and a couple other examples from Greek pseudepigrapha. The bottom line is that unless we have the underlying Hebrew for a text, we can’t be 100% sure what underlies the Greek, though based on the remaining evidence, it’s most likely that the underlying Hebrew was Adonai YHWH.
Thanks!
Dr. Staples. I have an urgent need to confirm the material in your NTS article mentioned here. I am speaking on the Attributes of God this Saturday at a Messianic Jewish gathering and the parsha this week is from Ex 34. Your corresponding material on Adonai Adonai would be wonderful. I will give you appropriate attribution. Could you please send me a copy to [email protected]
I would also like a copy if possible. Just a deacon that can’t afford the price of an academic journal or paper. Thank you for your attention.
Wow, terrific insight.
Jesus could not be the Creator. Here is why:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/why-jesus-cannot-be-the-creator-of-the-universe/
Jesus is the means by which God created the world, the cosmos, the universe, or whatever; therefore, that makes him a creator. Simple logic.
Hi Jason,
Great blog and great to explore this but I found that in these cases the person saying lord lord was not obedient. So it appears that double lord here refers to a person who is really talking up Jesus’ lordship but not doing as told. Perhaps if you scanned non Bible greek literature from period you would see lord lord used unrelates to YHVH. If the biblical instances referred to the Messianic aspect of Jesus then I would be convinced, but with all this said, no doubt Jesus IS YHVH, the YHVH who SAVES! ☺
In the Septuagint of the prophet Ezekiel, the term kurie kurie occurs twice as Ezekiel addresses Adonai Sacred Name in the Hebrew version of Ezekiel.
There are three other occasions where Ezekiel addresses Adonai Sacred Name (Lord GOD) in the Hebrew version of Ezekiel. In these three instances, one is translated in the Septuagint as
kurie the-en (Lord GOD) The other omit one of the ‘kurie’. So it is translated as Lord in English.
The four kurie kurie occurrences in Matthew’s gospel and in Luke’s gospel are by those who are being judged by Jesus Christ in the future judgement, and Jesus responds that ‘he never knew them’. This seems as evidence that Jesus Christ does not recognize their acclamation of calling him Lord GOD, (adonai sacred name).
There are in fact 217 occasions of adonai YHWH in Hebrew Ezekiel, of which 54 are translated with the double kurios.
The double kurie in Luke’s gospel does not in fact appear in the context of those being judged in the future judgment.
It is incorrect to conclude that Jesus does not recognize these individuals’ acclamation of him as Lord YHWH; instead the point is that such acclamation is itself insufficient if not paired with the obedience such recognition requires.
This is highly influential on Staples’ case, since out of 84 instances of the double kurios/kurie in the Old Greek, 58 of them are in Ezekiel. Now we know that the double kurios/kurie, was originally not in Ezekiel LXX, and was not the original practice for the Old Greek either. Consequently, most of Staples’ alleged evidence for the claim that the double kurios/kurie was commonly used in Second Temple Period literature to translate adonai yahweh, turns out to be non-existent. in actual fact, we find that adonai yahweh was overwhelmingly translated with something else.
Is there an alternative explanation for the data which actually does have evidence? Yes there is, and Staples actually acknowledges it; “it is true that geminatio sometimes does function as a
pathos formula”. [37] However, he says this cannot explain all the evidence.
“Whereas the doubling in Matt 7.22 or 25.11 could be dismissed as merely signalling heightened emotion as suggested by Luz, there is no indication of heightened emotion or affection in the statement ‘not everyone who says to me κύριε κύριε’ (7.21)”. [38]
So he acknowledges the case or geminatio in Matthew 7:22; 25:11, and presents no evidence that there is “no indication of heightened emotion or affection” in the statements in Matthew 7:21. This is not a way to make a strong case.
Staples does not mention the fact that a double vocative is a typical feature of Luke/Acts.
Luke 8:24, “Master, Master”
Luke 10:41, “Martha, Martha:
Luke 13:34, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem”
Luke 22:31, “Simon, Simon”
Luke 23:21, “Crucify, crucify”
Acts 9:4, “Saul, Saul”
Acts 22:7, “Saul, Saul”
Acts 26:14, “Saul, Saul”
Thanks for the comment. It is inaccurate to say that “we know that the double kurios/kurie was originally not in Ezekiel LXX, and was not the original practice for the Old Greek, either.” I addressed the evidence for the earliest Greek versions and how they were read aloud in the article, and that evidence cannot be merely dismissed, nor has there been any new discovery that has shed new and contrary light on that question.
Secondly, in Luke 6:46, there is no context of judgment or emotion, and the verb used in that context best reflects “calling” someone by a title—in this case the double kurios. That is not comparable to simply saying, “Martha, Martha” or other double vocatives in Luke-Acts. One still has to explain why someone would *call* Jesus “Lord Lord,” not why someone would cry out to Jesus, “Lord, Lord.” Those are very different things.
Mr. Staples,
Would it be possible to get a free pdf copy of your article, I would really appreciate it.
Hi Dr. Staples. Hope you are doing well. I am really interested in reading your article but I don’t have access to it on the Cambridge website. Can you please direct me to where I can go to get it. Thank you.
Your article looks interesting. This is a subject I haven’t looked into but wanted to. This is a good reminder to look at the original languages and see what they say. Do you present any extra-Biblical textual evidence that shows related cultural phenomena?
I suggest reading the article, which can answer these questions.
Thanks for sharing your paper. It’s well researched and written. It was a pleasure to read.
I would never have been able to do the research that you did, so thanks for saving me all the trouble trying to dig up resources that I don’t have access to and struggling through the Hebrew and Greek. Needless to say, I’m now convinced that Jesus = YHWH in Matthew & Luke (and the rest of the NT for that matter). The matter is now closed for me. Appreciate it!
A question: on page 15, 2nd paragraph, you reference Joel 3.32/3.5 as the basis of the Matthean reject ‘calling upon Jesus’. Is it possible that this was primarily Jesus’ rejection of people who relied on magical incantations using ‘divine names’? You alluded to magic below that statement. I read some papers on magic during the 2nd Temple period, and apparently it was a big thing. What I got out of it was, in principle, today’s American AMA is essentially practicing one of those forms of magic, albeit the ‘government certified’ kind. There is much more to magic than use of drugs, which was well known during Jesus’ time. Simon the sorcerer is a prime example. He tried to purchase that power (the Holy Spirit) from the Apostles, obviously in order to make profits from his use of it. John Lightfoot talks about this in his Talmud and Hebraica commentaries. So, could 2nd Temple magic practices have had something to do with Jesus’ rejection of the ‘appellants’?
Another question and statement:
1st sentence on page 16 regarding ‘profession + obedience’. What precisely is Jesus requiring obedience to? I ask this question b/c I’ve never heard a measurable answer to this question from the Christian churches and academics. They always provide vague generalities in reply. You hint at the answer further along in that paragraph by referring to ‘blasphemy’ (see Numbers 15:30 & James 2:19). So I’m asking you what Jesus was referring to. Obedience to WHAT?
And on page 18 you make a point about addressing Jesus in a prayer (quoting Bovon). In ‘religious’ terms, that is far from the truth conveyed by Luke in this passage, as you correctly point out. But, from a political/legal perspective, “prayer” fits (but not in a religious sense). A ‘prayer’ to a ‘judge/king’ is an official address to a higher authority. So in effect, the person addressing Jesus is in fact ‘praying’, that is, making an official plea to a sovereign. That perspective reinforces your point even further, since all ‘prayers’ to YHWH intend to invoke His Authority to help the helpless, as is readily seen in the Davidic Psalms.