What do you mean when you say that Jesus is Lord?

philologos

This is a question that I've been wondering for a while on boards.ie.

What do Christians mean when they say that Jesus is Lord? Is it that Jesus is Lord over everything, your life, or something else?

I'm genuinely interested in what people have to answer on this. I think re-evaluating some of what the other posters believe about the Lordship of Christ will be valuable.

Personally, I love this quote from Abraham Kuyper:

Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'

The Jammy dodger

Why complicate things? What do we mean when we call a broom a broom?

Jesus is Lord, lets leave it at that. *shrug*

Gumbi

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

Why complicate things? What do we mean when we call a broom a broom?

Jesus is Lord, lets leave it at that. *shrug*

Because words have meanings? Honestly, what a stupid comment, and I'm an atheist...

philologos

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

Why complicate things? What do we mean when we call a broom a broom?

Jesus is Lord, lets leave it at that. *shrug*

If you profess Jesus as Lord surely that means something. For me it means that Jesus is boss, I aim to serve Him first in all things. He's the Sovereign King over everything.

Peregrinus

The English word "lord" originally meant the master of servants; the head of a household. Thus your "lord" was not only someone with authority over you, but also someone intimately involved in your life. Over time it came to mean someone with political authority, and in the feudal period someone with political authority connected with the ownership of land - so, someone exercising public authority, rather than intimate authority.

The religious use of the term is by analogy, and it's found quite early on, but it gets a huge boost in the King James Bible, where "Lord" is regularly used to translate the Hebrew "Adonai" and the Tetgragrammaton (both names for God). In the New Testament, it’s usually a translation of the Greek “kyrios”.

The translation is easily defensible; "Adonai" it itself from a Hebrew word meaning something like lord, master. And the Vulgate had already translated it as "Dominus", which means master. (It's connected with "domus", a home, and means head of the house.)

At the same time, the choice is interesting, because the King James Bible was produced at a time when the "intimate" meaning of "lord" (head of the family, head of the household) is fading, and the "political" meaning has come to the foreground. So by choosing to use "Lord" here, the translators were, wittingly or unwittingly, associating God and Jesus with public and state power, and of course associating political potentates - the only "lords" most people knew or knew of - with godlike characteristics and qualities. In other words, some of the lustre of God was going to rub off on the state and its high officials - an outcome not entirely unwelcome to those who produced the King James Bible. At the same time the “intimate” nature of God’s lordship was eclipsed.

That's history, of course, because we no longer have "lords" who are of any political significance - the idea seems positively quaint, if not vaguely offensive. So saying that "Jesus is Lord" doesn't have the resonances it would have had a couple of centuries ago.

Nowadays, I think, the language just seems a bit archaic. It’s solidly scriptural, though - Paul tells us that no-one can say “Jesus is Lord” (kyrios) except through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12), and that if we confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in his resurrection we will be saved (Rom 10). In fact Paul uses the word “kyrios” with respect to Jesus a great deal, as do all four of the evangelists.

At a minimum, then, whoever says “Jesus is Lord!” is associating himself with a scriptural understanding of Jesus. But I think it’s still worth reflecting on the nature of Jesus’ lordship. It’s pretty much the polar opposite of lordship in the political sense - a point Jesus makes in his exchange with Pilate, and also in his exchange with Peter at the washing of the feet. The lordship of Jesus involves total self-giving in loving service. Probably the older sense of “lord” as the head of a family or household is a little bit closer to the spirit in which the evangelists and Paul use the term, but even there I think they are both claiming the term and radically subverting it.

philologos

I think I could agree with most of this. What I find interesting is what do Christians mean when they use that word. Although I'd agree that Jesus isn't ruling an earthly realm I think Scripture is quite clear that the Father gave Jesus all authority. He's the promised Messiah of the line of David, but He's far more than David. He's a mediator like Moses but far more than Moses.

I think what's more intriguing is what jurisdiction Christians believe that Jesus has on their lives. Are we to submit to Jesus in all things or some things to him and others to us. I want to know about the essence of His lordship on the lives of Christians.

Peregrinus

Well, “authority” is another concept whose meaning has changed since the scriptures were written (and translated). It’s primary meaning nowadays is probably the political one; authority is the power to make binding rules and orders. So the highway authority, for instance, makes and executes decisions about highways. If you don’t like the decision you can’t ignore it; you have to get it changed. If you simply ignore it, you’re in breach of the law.

But there’s another sense of “authority”, as seen in “Jim is the leading authority on (say) suspension bridges”. This wouldn’t mean that Jim has been given - or has claimed - any power to make rules, orders, decisions about the construction of suspension bridges. It means he knows them thoroughly and has reflected on them deeply and understands them intimately, and anyone seeking to put a bridge that won’t fall down would be wise to listen to what Jim has to say. Jim becomes an authority not because of any appointment or delegation he has received, but simply because of who he is.

I don’t see the authority/lordship of Jesus as anything to do with making or enforcing rules. Jesus is the perfect, fulfilled, competed human; he understands, experiences and expresses perfectly what it is to be human, and it is this perfection in which his authority is rooted. He is more fully human than you or I or anyone else, and anyone seeking to become the man or woman that God has called them to be should look to Jesus - should follow Jesus - to find out what that is, and what it calls for.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, “authority” is another concept whose meaning has changed since the scriptures were written (and translated). It’s primary meaning nowadays is probably the political one; authority is the power to make binding rules and orders. So the highway authority, for instance, makes and executes decisions about highways. If you don’t like the decision you can’t ignore it; you have to get it changed. If you simply ignore it, you’re in breach of the law.

But there’s another sense of “authority”, as seen in “Jim is the leading authority on (say) suspension bridges”. This wouldn’t mean that Jim has been given - or has claimed - any power to make rules, orders, decisions about the construction of suspension bridges. It means he knows them thoroughly and has reflected on them deeply and understands them intimately, and anyone seeking to put a bridge that won’t fall down would be wise to listen to what Jim has to say. Jim becomes an authority not because of any appointment or delegation he has received, but simply because of who he is.

I don’t see the authority/lordship of Jesus as anything to do with making or enforcing rules. Jesus is the perfect, fulfilled, competed human; he understands, experiences and expresses perfectly what it is to be human, and it is this perfection in which his authority is rooted. He is more fully human than you or I or anyone else, and anyone seeking to become the man or woman that God has called them to be should look to Jesus - should follow Jesus - to find out what that is, and what it calls for.

Please don't assume what I'm saying.

I'm not encouraging legalism. That's certainly not what the Gospel is about.

I want to know what Christians think of Christ's Lordship. What difference does it make? What does it mean practically?

smash

philologos wrote: »

For me it means that Jesus is boss, I aim to serve Him first in all things. He's the Sovereign King over everything.

Then what's god?

SonOfAdam

It's an interesting question and forces me to concede that Jesus' lordship in my life is less than it ought to be ~ I am at heart selfish and self-seeking and as such want to be in total control over my life ~ for me that is part of the human condition. Surrendering that control is an ongoing part of my relationship with Jesus and just when I cede lordship to Him in one area I struggle with it in another. BUT I have also discovered that there is no stopwatch set for me and all things are by His grace so I set my face towards the time when He reigns fully and trust that He will bring to completion that what He started.

smash

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Surrendering that control is an ongoing part of my relationship with Jesus

Or you know... free will and all that!

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

If you profess Jesus as Lord surely that means something. For me it means that Jesus is boss, I aim to serve Him first in all things. He's the Sovereign King over everything.

I'd definitely be interested to understand what Christians mean when they say "Jesus is Lord".

What do you mean, practically, when you say above you "aim to serve" Jesus? Literally, what does it mean to "serve him first in all things"?

If you are his servant, does he communicate his will to you? How does he do this? Obviously, there are no specific instructions (dates, places, times, people) in the bible about what you (philologos) should be doing on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. If the bible is your source, it would surely require a fair bit of interpretation to apply it to mundane everday 21st century living on a task-by-task basis, hour-by-hour?

So, for each task, how do you know that Jesus doesn't want you doing something else? How do you decide whether an activity/thought is something that he has an opinion on or whether it is something that he leaves it up to you to decide??

For your job, how you do know that it serves Jesus? Could you have chosen something else to do that would better serve him? Why didn't you choose that?

I'm sure everyone could always do better in serving Jesus but how does he provide feedback to you on your performance in serving him? Does he ever give good feedback or bad feedback? Or is it self-evaluation?

Is there anyone that you know in your daily life (friends/colleagues) with whom Jesus is satisfied, in terms of their service??

Apologies for all the questions - just can't really see how it works on a practical level.

totus tuus

Every time the Blessed Eucharist is raised at the Consecration at Holy Mass, I echo the words of Thomas - My Lord and my God.

I adore Him as my Saviour and King , and acknowledge His Divinity and Authority over all.

georgieporgy

totus tuus wrote: »

Every time the Blessed Eucharist is raised at the Consecration at Holy Mass, I echo the words of Thomas - My Lord and my God.

I adore Him as my Saviour and King , and acknowledge His Divinity and Authority over all.

plus...... "my brother", "my friend".

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Please don't assume what I'm saying.

I'm not encouraging legalism. That's certainly not what the Gospel is about.

Sorry, Phil. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest you were promoting legalism; far from it.

My point was not about you, but about the language of scripture. Words like “lord” and “authority” have a different meaning for us than they had when the scriptures were translated into English, and they have an even more different meaning from the meaning “kyrios” had for the people to whom Paul addressed his letters. So Jesus is lord, but his lordship doesn’t have a huge amount to do with, say, medieval lordship, or being Lord Chancellor, or being appointed to the House of Lords, or any of the other images that spring to mind when we hear the word “lord” today. If we want to know what the lordship of Jesus looks like, we have to go back to the source of our claim that Jesus is Lord - the gospels, and the letters of Paul. And the lordship we find expressed there, and the authority we find exercised, is strikingly different from more conventional instances of lordship and authority.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sorry, Phil. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest you were promoting legalism; far from it.

My point was not about you, but about the language of scripture. Words like “lord” and “authority” have a different meaning for us than they had when the scriptures were translated into English, and they have an even more different meaning from the meaning “kyrios” had for the people to whom Paul addressed his letters. So Jesus is lord, but his lordship doesn’t have a huge amount to do with, say, medieval lordship, or being Lord Chancellor, or being appointed to the House of Lords, or any of the other images that spring to mind when we hear the word “lord” today. If we want to know what the lordship of Jesus looks like, we have to go back to the source of our claim that Jesus is Lord - the gospels, and the letters of Paul. And the lordship we find expressed there, and the authority we find exercised, is strikingly different from more conventional instances of lordship and authority.

I guess my question is one more of application than etymology.

I don't think its wrong to speak of Jesus as King though. There are numerous references to Jesus being the Christ / Messiah in the New Testament. Sure He's not a political ruler, but He does have a kingdom that we are a part of.

Even if the word Lord had a different meaning and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't believe the application is much different when we consider the Messiahship of Christ or that He's the Son of Man prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14.

philologos

Sacksian wrote: »

I'd definitely be interested to understand what Christians mean when they say "Jesus is Lord".

What do you mean, practically, when you say above you "aim to serve" Jesus? Literally, what does it mean to "serve him first in all things"?

If you are his servant, does he communicate his will to you? How does he do this? Obviously, there are no specific instructions (dates, places, times, people) in the bible about what you (philologos) should be doing on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. If the bible is your source, it would surely require a fair bit of interpretation to apply it to mundane everday 21st century living on a task-by-task basis, hour-by-hour?

So, for each task, how do you know that Jesus doesn't want you doing something else? How do you decide whether an activity/thought is something that he has an opinion on or whether it is something that he leaves it up to you to decide??

For your job, how you do know that it serves Jesus? Could you have chosen something else to do that would better serve him? Why didn't you choose that?

I'm sure everyone could always do better in serving Jesus but how does he provide feedback to you on your performance in serving him? Does he ever give good feedback or bad feedback? Or is it self-evaluation?

Is there anyone that you know in your daily life (friends/colleagues) with whom Jesus is satisfied, in terms of their service??

Apologies for all the questions - just can't really see how it works on a practical level.

I want to touch on this. I aimed this thread to be mainly for Christians to discuss what Jesus' sovereignty and Lordship means for them. I didn't anticipate having to answer myself, but I will since you asked

1. Literally what it means is that I try to live like Him. I think you're wrong to say that the Bible doesn't offer guidance for living. This is false. Jesus Himself gives Christians numerous guidelines to follow in the Gospels. Particularly Matthew's gospel in respect to the Sermon of the Mount. But other gospels as well. For example praying for those who oppose the gospel and for those who even hate me. It's easy to reciprocate hate, it's harder to love that person as yourself. For example, lusting after another in my heart is on par with adultery. Therefore it's wrong for me to sexualise another human being for my own selfish gratification. Being angry without cause is the same thing in terms of the gospel as murder. Valuing other things in this world above Christ, accepting other things as Lord rather than the true Gospel of Jesus. If our treasure is with Christ then we will want to serve Him rather than serving other things, seeking after other things. All we truly need is in Christ. Nothing else.

Listening to Jesus wherever He is spoken about or where He speaks Himself is where Christians learn how to follow Jesus. (Jesus also notes that Moses spoke of Him in the Old Testament - chapter 5:45-46)

2. God communicates His will to us primarily through His word. This does not mean that I don't believe that God can't do it in other ways, but primarily through His word. I've never heard God audibly tell me anything. I have heard what God says to me by reading his Word however.

The Bible practically tells me how to live as a Christian though.

3. How do I know that my job serves Jesus? - Biblically speaking I know because Scripture tells me that I am to be a light to the world as I live as a Christian. I can do that anywhere. Moreover I have an opportunity to tell people about why I trust Jesus who probably would never speak to someone who was a minister / pastor or even step into a church. I get asked about my faith in Christ on a regular basis in my work as a computer programmer. The Bible also says that we're to serve in our work as if we're working for God Himself.

Now obviously there are areas of work that pose a dilemma to this. For example what if I work in an industry that is involved with something that is opposed to the Gospel. I wouldn't get involved. One can't serve God in something that furthers unrighteousness.

Also, does this mean that ministry is useless? - No, formal ministry is abundantly useful and truth be told we need far more people to shepherd congregations and to speak His word.

What I am saying is that just because I work a secular job as a computer programmer doesn't mean that I can't glorify Jesus in that workplace. Indeed as Christians we need a mix. A few (and only a few) to pastor and shepherd His people, the Christian church, and many to serve Jesus in their workplaces, or in social settings where church couldn't be any further from consideration. We need people to be living amongst non-believers so they can witness to the love and mercy of King Jesus to others.

4. Wouldn't I need a fair bit of interpretation to do this?
One needs to make sure they are reading the text properly. Other than this many of the letters from the apostles to congregations, and the parables of Jesus, and the teachings of Jesus are rather clear. I want to stand for what Jesus stood for in my daily lives, and to proclaim the good news of the Gospel that Jesus Christ stood in our place on the cross to pay the full price of sin so that we might be truly forgiven in His sight.

5. How do I know that Jesus doesn't want me doing something else? - The Bible is clear on a general level as to what God wants for us to do, that is to live and speak for Jesus to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and to serve Him (Matthew 28:20).

On a particular level, I agree, the Bible doesn't mention specific things for certain people. It does imply that different people serve the Christian church in different ways with varying gifts. For example if someone is gifted at teaching the Bible they might be a pastor. If someone is gifted in prayer, one might be a really good Christian counsellor, or an important figure for people to come to in church. If people are quite sociable they might be able to befriend others and communicate Jesus that way.

What the Bible does do however is give a broad framework for how Christians should see the world and live in the world as a result of Jesus. I think on that framework the Bible should influence our decision making. I don't think Jesus would oppose what we do if it is in the broad framework of what Jesus expects of us as Christians, or if it is glorifying Him.

6. It's not about proving to Jesus that our works are good enough. The Bible doesn't say this. What the Bible says is that we've all sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Jesus came into the world to rescue us and forgive us. We live for Him as a response to His mercy, as thankfulness. Jesus has already done everything we need to be saved. What we do is live in response to His mercy and share that with others in the world. If I abide in what Jesus says, and if I commit my life to Him entirely, He will be at work in me till the very end (Philippians 1:6). He promises me that He won't leave us.

Christianity stands out as markedly different to other religions. God loved us while we hated Him and sinned before Him (Romans 5:8-9), not only this but if we turn to Him for mercy, God helps us become the people He wants us to be. That's incredible.

It's not about what we do, or have done. It's about what Christ has done. Every other religion I can think of says do X, Y or Z and God will love you on the basis of your credentials. Christianity says God loved you first. He rescued you while you hated Him and rejected Him (we all did I'm not pointing to you only). If you put your trust in Jesus, Jesus will help you follow Him. He will be living and active in you. Obedience to Christ will come naturally as we are transformed by His kindness and as we look to His word.

bonniebede

Peregrinus wrote: »

But there’s another sense of “authority”, as seen in “Jim is the leading authority on (say) suspension bridges”. This wouldn’t mean that Jim has been given - or has claimed - any power to make rules, orders, decisions about the construction of suspension bridges. It means he knows them thoroughly and has reflected on them deeply and understands them intimately, and anyone seeking to put a bridge that won’t fall down would be wise to listen to what Jim has to say. Jim becomes an authority not because of any appointment or delegation he has received, but simply because of who he is.

I don’t see the authority/lordship of Jesus as anything to do with making or enforcing rules. Jesus is the perfect, fulfilled, competed human; he understands, experiences and expresses perfectly what it is to be human, and it is this perfection in which his authority is rooted. He is more fully human than you or I or anyone else, and anyone seeking to become the man or woman that God has called them to be should look to Jesus - should follow Jesus - to find out what that is, and what it calls for.

Thanks i found this interesting. I know that if one only sees Jesus as an example for us to follow one has strayed into wrong thinking (pelagianism) and jesus came to address not just the problem of us not knowing what to do, but rather not having the power to do what is right , because of our fallen nature. nonetheless jesus also serves as the exemplar for us, and you reminded me of this and to go back to the scriptures with this in mind.
thanks.

philologos

It does really strain to think that Jesus' authority is the same as saying someone is an authority on road bridges.

This is clearly not what we see in the gospels. Jesus is clearly presented as God's chosen king.

If one is claiming that word use has changed that's a perfect example.

In John 5:19-29 we have Jesus speaking about His authority and Him saying that the Father has given all authority and all judgement to Him.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

It does really strain to think that Jesus' authority is the same as saying someone is an authority on road bridges.

That's not quite what I'm trying to say. My point is that Jesus is not an authority in the sense that a government agency is an authority. He's not a mechanism for making and enforcing regulations, which is what the word "authority" primarily suggests to us.

philologos wrote: »

This is clearly not what we see in the gospels. Jesus is clearly presented as God's chosen king.

Yes. But his kingship is not to be compared with earthly kingship, a point Jesus himself makes explicitly. He's not a king in the way that King David was a king. This is important, not least because it's mainly his failure to be that kind of king that got him crucified.

Jesus is the kind of king who washes other people's dirty feet. In other words, he's a kind of king we've never seen before. We cannot overemphasise the radical, challenging newness of the kingship of Jesus. And at the same time we cannot think that this diminishes his kingship in any way.

lmaopml

I would tend to think of the titles in Scripture for Jesus in relation to an aspect or deeper way of understanding Jesus role as Messiah, Savior, Lord, King, a past, present and future wholeness, a way of revealing a greater mystery about God. The words we use are just our best way of communicating something deeper. Hence he has so many titles.

He is our Lord and King absolutely, but as he explained his kingdom is not of this world. He is also Emmanuel, Christ, The Word, Prophet, Apostle, High Priest, Son of God, Son of Man, Lamb of God, Paschal Lamb, New Adam, Light of the world, Bread of Life etc.

Each title comes together to give the bigger picture that he is not merely a prophet like Moses, or a Priest like the earthly High Priests, or a King like David....they allude to more, bigger.....something we try to comprehend using words. Joshua ( of the same name ) led the people into the earthly promised land - Jesus is not leading people to an earthly kingdom, he is asking them to 'follow me' to the heavenly kingdom.

I think the title 'Lord' or 'King' to me in my life Phil means that in order to follow Jesus daily we must imitate him and pick up the cross daily and ( not always so simply ) - stay on the path, proclaim the Gospel and let him lead, don't put that light under a bushel and all that Put him at the centre of our lives as our greatest treasure, and try to recognise when we fall we pick ourselves up again.

I think all the titles come together however, some explain 'who' he is, Emmanuel, Christ, The Word etc., and some explain 'what' he did, salvific titles, and yet others explain a heavenly reality that we try to comprehend better. All of them are important to get the full reality of what the Apostles wanted us to know about Jesus, who he is, what he did, and what his mission to humanity is accomplishing and will accomplish.

He said he came 'that the blind may see', and these titles the apostles used ( and indeed Jesus himself in some instances ) are their way of communicating through the Holy Spirit a deeper mystery about salvation and about God himself.



My 2c