Why This Entry Matters
Few words appear more frequently in the Bible—and in Christian worship—than the word “Lord.” It is used to translate the divine name in the Old Testament, to identify Jesus’ authority in the New Testament, and to express Christian confession and allegiance.
Recently, however, the use of “Lord” has become a focal point in arguments claiming that:
- Bible translators violated God’s commands,
- the divine name has been suppressed or falsified,
- and historic Christianity has normalized disobedience.
Because of that, the explanatory note in ISR’s The Scriptures, dealing with the word “Lord” carry extraordinary theological and pastoral weight. How they are framed can either help readers understand translation practices—or lead them to conclude that Scripture itself has been corrupted and misused.
This post evaluates the ISR explanatory note on “Lord” using biblical, historical, and theological lenses, and then asks a pastoral question:
Does this explanation faithfully address the use of “Lord” in Scripture—or does it accuse generations of believers of disobedience without biblical warrant?
What the ISR Note Claims
The ISR explanatory note argues that substituting the divine name (יהוה) with “LORD” or “Lord”:
- Violates the Third Commandment by falsifying God’s name
- Violates Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding to or taking away from God’s Word
- Is rebuked by Jeremiah 23:36 as changing the words of the living God
- Is sinful because “Lord” is not an innocent title, allegedly tracing back to:
- a Roman house-deity,
- an Etruscan sovereign named Larth,
- and pagan ruler-worship
The note concludes that using “Lord” in place of the divine name is a clear transgression of Scripture.
This is not presented as preference or caution—it is presented as moral judgment.
Biblical Evaluation: Does Scripture Forbid Translating the Divine Name?
No.
Scripture does not teach that translating or substituting the divine name is sinful.
In fact:
- The Old Testament itself uses titles for God (El, Elohim, Adonai)
- Jewish readers, long before Christianity, avoided pronouncing the divine name and read Adonai (“Lord”) aloud instead
- The Greek Septuagint—used by Jesus and the apostles—regularly renders יהוה as Kyrios (“Lord”)
- New Testament authors freely quote Old Testament passages with Kyrios in place of the Tetragrammaton
If substituting “Lord” were a violation of the Third Commandment, then:
- Jesus,
- the apostles,
- and the inspired New Testament writings
would all stand condemned by the very law they upheld.
Scripture itself does not support that conclusion.
Historical Evaluation: How Has “Lord” Been Used by God’s People?
The ISR note treats the use of “Lord” as a late, corrupt innovation. Historically, that is false.
- Jewish reverence for the divine name predates Christianity
- Greek-speaking Jews used Kyrios centuries before the New Testament
- Early Christians confessed “Jesus is Lord” as a central statement of faith
- No early Jewish or Christian source accuses this practice of idolatry or disobedience
There is no historical record of believers being warned that using “Lord” violates God’s commands.
That absence matters.
Linguistic Evaluation: Is “Lord” a Pagan Title?
The claim that “Lord” is inherently pagan is linguistically and historically unsound.
- Lord in English derives from Old English hlāford, meaning “master” or “authority”
- Titles of authority exist in every language
- The presence of rulers or deities using similar titles does not contaminate the word itself
Scripture consistently demonstrates that:
- titles are defined by who they refer to, not by distant historical usage
- the same word can be used rightly or wrongly depending on worship and allegiance
Calling Jesus “Lord” does not invoke pagan deities—it confesses His sovereignty.
What the Note Does Not Say (and Why That Matters)
The ISR note does not acknowledge that:
- the Septuagint’s use of Kyrios shaped New Testament theology
- the apostles freely applied Kyrios to Jesus in fulfillment of Old Testament texts
- Scripture itself models translation, substitution, and interpretation across languages
Most importantly, it does not warn readers against a devastating conclusion:
“If ‘Lord’ is sinful, then the Bible I’ve read, the prayers I’ve prayed, and the worship I’ve offered may all be disobedient.”
That inference is not stated—but it is invited.
Theological Evaluation: Why This Note Is Especially Dangerous
Unlike some other ISR notes, this one does not merely suggest improvement.
It charges disobedience.
It implies that:
- translators violated God’s commands,
- the church normalized sin,
- and faithful believers unknowingly dishonored God’s name.
That accusation strikes at:
- Scripture’s reliability
- the legitimacy of Christian worship
- the unity of the church
- assurance of faith
Once that foundation is shaken, almost anything can be rebuilt in its place.
Why This Note Is High-Risk
The danger here is not linguistic curiosity—it is spiritual destabilization.
When believers are told that:
- their Bible is unfaithful,
- their worship language is sinful,
- and obedience requires separation from historic Christianity,
the result is often:
- fear rather than faith,
- suspicion rather than trust,
- and isolation rather than unity.
This is not how Scripture leads God’s people.
A Biblically Faithful Way to Handle This Issue
A responsible explanatory note would say something like:
“The use of ‘Lord’ reflects longstanding Jewish and Christian practice of reverence for the divine name. Scripture itself models the use of titles such as Adonai and Kyrios, and the New Testament freely applies ‘Lord’ to Jesus as a confession of His deity and authority.”
That framing honors God’s name without condemning God’s people.
Final Assessment
Does Scripture forbid translating the divine name as “Lord”?
No.
Does the ISR note accurately represent biblical and historical practice?
No.
Does this note risk undermining confidence in Scripture and Christian worship?
Yes—severely.
Is this a neutral explanatory note?
No. It is an accusation.
This is not a technical correction.
It is a theological indictment—and that is why it demands careful pastoral response.
Leave a Reply