Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
In the New Testament the Greek word used for ‘Lord’ is often ‘kurios’ or ‘Kyrie’, a transliteration of Greek Κύριε (Kyrie), vocative case of Κύριος (Kyrios). I understand and believe the implications from the Septuagint is relating YHWH.
In Luke 5:5 Peter referred to Jesus as ‘master’, epistates (Ἐπιστάτα), and in 5:8 he used Kyrie (κύριε).
Luke 5:5
And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.”
epistates (Ἐπιστάτα)
http://bibleapps.com/greek/1988.htm
Luke 5:8
But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”
kurios. (κύριος, ου, ὁ)
http://bibleapps.com/greek/2962.htm
My question is more about epistates (Ἐπιστάτα). How would that term have been routinely used during that time period? It seems that Kurios/Kyrie were used interchangeably with people of high standing so would ‘epistates’ have been used in the same way? I take it to be comparable to addressing a middle manager or Forman and addressing the owner of the company or boss. Relationally how would Peters address be intended and how would it have been received by a common person of the time.
Gray Watson
The discussion around the terms ‘kurios’ and ‘epistates’ in the New Testament is intriguing, but it is essential to understand their historical and cultural contexts to avoid misinterpretations. The use of ‘epistates’ (Ἐπιστάτα) by Peter in Luke 5:5 does not merely reflect a hierarchical distinction; it emphasizes a relational dynamic between teacher and disciple. As noted by Pew Research Center, language can deeply reflect societal structures and relationships (Pew Research, 2017). Furthermore, while ‘kurios’ certainly carries connotations of divinity—especially when associated with YHWH from the Septuagint—this does not diminish the significance of Peter’s address as one of respect towards Jesus as a leader or teacher within his community (Christianity.com). It is important to recognize that these titles were not always interchangeable; rather, they highlighted different facets of Jesus’ role in society. Therefore, claiming that these terms imply a singular understanding or relationship may lead to oversimplification. In conclusion, this post presents an interpretation that risks misrepresenting the complex dynamics at play in first-century Judeo-Christian interactions. Such reductions can lead to misunderstandings akin to Gnostic theology, which often distorts orthodox beliefs for personal interpretation.