I said I would look at the idea of calling on the name of the Lord Jesus in order to round off a little flurry of posts on the relation between Jesus and God in the context, particularly, of Luke’s narrative in Acts. The aim is neither to undermine nor defend Trinitarian orthodoxy. It is to try to imagine how the apostles and the early churches located the risen Jesus, not simply in relation to the Father but as part of a story that was being told.
In the minds of the apostles Jesus was the “Son” sent to Israel who had been rejected and killed by the leaders of the people and their Roman overlords, but who had been raised from the dead and elevated—in a more or less literal fashion—to the right hand of God in heaven.
This resurrected Messiah or “Son of God” was revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus, bringing him in line with the Jerusalem apostles (Gal. 1:15-16; 1 Cor. 15:8-9). He was also revealed in more visionary experiences at critical junctures—for example, to Stephen on the point of death, as the Son of Man who had likewise suffered but had been vindicated by God (Acts 7:55-56; cf. 18:9).
These visions confirmed not only that Jesus was not dead but that he had been granted, in response to his faithfulness, an exceptional status at the right hand of God.
The elevation of Jesus was interpreted principally through the lens of Psalm 110:1. The climax to Peter’s Pentecost sermon is determinative in this regard:
For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:34–36)
The psalm differentiates between the “LORD” who is YHWH and the “Lord” who by virtue of his resurrection and ascension is greater than David, who has been made “Lord and Christ” by YHWH for the sake of Israel, as long as there are “enemies” to be resisted and overcome.
The thought, therefore, is that the God of Israel has given to his Son the authority to act on his behalf as judge and ruler—not only with respect to Israel, as it will turn out, but also with respect to the nations of the Greek-Roman oikoumenē.
This delegation of authority accounts for the reapplication of Old Testament YHWH texts to Jesus, but the christology remains firmly within the boundaries of the Jewish kingdom narrative. What makes Jesus remarkable is that, unlike David, his body did not see corruption (Acts 2:29-32); death was not the end but the beginning of his rule; he would reign, therefore, as YHWH’s anointed king throughout the coming ages, until the last enemy is destroyed (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28).
It is a further part of this story that Jesus was given the promised Holy Spirit and that he then “poured out” the experience of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost to empower the prophetic-eschatological community of his disciples (Acts 2:33). So we have the basic components of Trinitarian belief (even without a Wisdom/Word christology) but in narrative-apocalyptic relation to each other. It was the later church, it seems to me, that collapsed this narrative into metaphysics once the apocalyptic vision had served its purpose.
I suggested that this narrative-apocalyptic model entails two channels of communication. Prayer (proseuchē, proseuchomai) is always addressed to God as a continuation of normal Jewish practice, but a channel of communication is also open between the apostles and the Lord Jesus in heaven. Much of the communication happens in visions, but they also speak to him directly and expect to get a response—for example, through the casting of lots (Acts 1:26). Paul tells the Corinthians that he had “pleaded with the Lord” on three occasions that the thorn in the flesh, his messenger of Satan, would leave him (2 Cor. 12:8). He is not praying to God here, he is communicating with the risen Lord, the suffering and vindicated Son of Man, who got him into all this trouble in the first place:
But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor. 12:9–10)
Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus also has to be understood as part of this story. It is simplistic—and seriously misleading—to argue that expression identified him directly with the “LORD” on whose name people called in the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament the phrase occurs in two main contexts:
- people call upon the name of YHWH, often in a particular place, as the initiation of, or as an act of, cultic worship and thanksgiving (e.g., Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 21:33; 26:25; Ps. 105:1; 116:17; Is. 12:4; Zeph. 3:9);
- people call upon the name of YHWH when they need divine intervention (e.g., 1 Kgs. 18:24; 2 Kgs. 5:11; Ps. 99:6; 116:4; Lam. 3:55; Joel 2:32).
New Testament usage seems to be determined by the second of these categories, and again Peter’s Pentecost oration sets the pattern.
- It’s not stated explicitly, but presumably Peter expected the Jews who heard him to be saved from the judgment coming upon Jerusalem by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:21, 37-40).
- Paul called on the name of the “Righteous One” when he was baptised (Acts 22:16).
- Believers are more or less by definition people who call on the name of the Lord (Acts 9:14, 21; 1 Cor. 1:2).
- Paul extends Peter’s application of Joel 2:32 by insisting that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek in this regard: ‘For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”’ (Rom. 10:13).
Paul’s reference to the saints “who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2) might be mistaken for an example of calling on the name of the Lord in the context of worship and thanksgiving. But the thought is really eschatological: to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus is to look forward to the “day of our Lord Jesus Christ”, when he will be revealed and will deliver them from the wrath to come (1 Cor. 1:7-8; cf. 1 Thess. 1:9-10).
So the early believers did not think that in calling on the name of the Lord Jesus they were really calling on the name of YHWH. They thought that they were calling on the name of the one who had recently lived and died among them, who had been raised from the dead, and who, as their Lord and Messiah, as their saviour and king, had been given the authority and power to safeguard a remnant community, which would survive the coming “day of the Lord”, when there would be “wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood” (Acts 2:19–20; cf. Matt. 24:29; Mk. 13:24-25).
As you can see, it’s all thoroughly apocalyptic. The metaphysics has to wait.
1. You wrote: It is simplistic—and seriously misleading—to argue that calling on the name of the Lord Jesus identified him directly with the “Lord” on whose name people called in the Old Testament.
My response: Your assertions runs against how the words of the Bible are properly defined.
a. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: …the name of Jesus is substituted for the name of God. Now one can call on (i.e., worship) the name of Jesus (Acts 9:14)…As with the name of the Lord in the OT, the name of Jesus signifies his nature (4:151, name- shem, Allen P. Ross).
b. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament: In the NT, the name is that of Jesus Christ, recognized as Lord and God, such that the formula “invoke the name” is probably linked to baptism, where it is professed that “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” and where a person is purified of sins by “calling upon his name” (Acts 22:16). This is the designation of Christians according to Acts 9:14, where Saul has the power to “bind all those who call upon your name.”
This invocation becomes ecclesial and ecumenical in the epistles of St. Paul. First Corinthians is addressed to “those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in any place” (1 Cor 1:2), the church being the gathering of those who adore Christ, who celebrate his worship (cf. Ps 145:18) and pray to him from a pure heart. Over against the religious individualism of the Greek cities, all believers are united in their adoration of Christ as Lord and God; their common “invocation” is the expression of their unity. “He is the same Lord for all (Jews and Gentiles), rich toward all who call upon him, for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom 10:12-13; cf. Heb 11:16). If the invocation of the name is always salvific and implies worship in the NT, the call for help in the OT is less accentuated with divine protection and generosity being more emphasized (2:44, epikaleō, Ceslas Spicq).
2. You wrote: Paul’s reference to the saints “who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2) might be mistaken for an example of calling on the name of the Lord in the context of worship and thanksgiving. But the thought is really eschatological: to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus is to look forward to the “day of our Lord Jesus Christ”, when he will be revealed and will deliver them from the wrath to come (1 Cor. 1:7-8; cf. 1 Thess. 1:9-10).
My response: It refers to both.
Calling upon the name of the Lord is linked with offering a “sacrifice” to Him of thanksgiving. Without question this is cultic worship.
Psalm 116:17 reads,
To You I shall offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
And call upon the name of the LORD. (NASB)
Not only did Paul call upon the name of the Lord in reference to the Lord Jesus but he also rendered a heartfelt attitude of “thanksgiving” to Him (1 Timothy 1:12). Thus the Lord Jesus was (and is to be) supremely worshiped.
Marc, it’s no good quoting lexicons. My argument is that this line of interpretation is wrong, largely because it fails to take the narrative-apocalyptic context into account. I have tried to show how that is the case. By all means point out to me the flaws in my exegesis, but don’t just keep cutting and pasting chunks from the lexicons.
But this doesn’t inspire confidence in that regard:
Calling upon the name of the Lord is linked with offering a “sacrifice” to Him of thanksgiving. Without question this is cultic worship.
There is no reference to a “sacrifice” of thanksgiving in 1 Corinthians. This is not the context in which Paul speaks of calling on the name of the Lord.
He says in verse 4, “I give thanks to my God”, which directly contradicts your argument. Paul does not confuse calling on the name of the Lord with giving thanks to God.
In effect, Paul gives thanks to God because the Corinthians have received the grace to call on the name of the Lord Jesus in the expectation that he will deliver them—two distinct forms of communication, directed towards two distinct “persons”.
The only place in the New Testament where the phrase “sacrifice of thanksgiving” from Psalm 116:17 is found (thusian aineseōs in the LXX) is Hebrews 13:15:
Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise (thusian aineseōs) to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.
So the pattern is again clear: the sacrifice of thanksgiving or praise, like prayer, is offered to God through Jesus, who suffered outside the gate but who now now ministers as a great high priest in the heavenly holy of holies. This sacrifice of praise is the fruit of the lips of people who acknowledge the name of Jesus—that is, who identify themselves with the crucified Messiah.
In denying how the lexicons properly define the words of the Bible and without citing any in your favor reveals that you are simply offering an unsupportable opinion concerning this issue.
When asserting that “calling upon the name of the Lord” in reference to the Lord Jesus is not offering Him (absolute) worshiping and as a sacrifice one must look at all the places this phrase is employed as well as the other cultic words used by Paul in His worship of the Lord Jesus.
James 4:8 gives further evidence that calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus is supreme worship of Him as God.
It reads: Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. (NASB)
This drawing near to God is used in the context concerning prayer to Him (4:2-3) and in the Old Testament it likewise referred to the supreme worship rendered unto God (Ezekiel 43:19). Calling on the name of the Lord is drawing near to the Lord in supreme worship (Psalm 145:18; cf. Deuteronomy 4:7). The same holds true concerning cleansing of the hands and purifying of the hearts (Psalm 24:3-4; cf. 73:13; 1 Timothy 2:8).
Psalm 34:18 also uses the expression “The LORD is near” but does so in relation to the “brokenhearted”. It is the condition of the heart that is paramount in approaching the omniscient Lord in prayer. This brokenheartedness to Him is considered a “sacrifice”.
Psalm 51:2 — Cleanse
Psalm 51:10 — Clean heart
Psalm 51:17 — The sacrifices of God are…a broken and a contrite heart
That Paul expresses the necessity of calling on the name of Lord Jesus with a “pure heart” (2 Timothy 2:22) equates with the command given by James to “purify your hearts” in the worship of God (James 4:8). Indeed, earlier within Paul’s epistle to Timothy he writes of the necessity of worshiping God with a “clear conscience” which means the same thing as calling on the name of the Lord with a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22).
TDNT: Calling on the Lord from a pure heart (2 Tm. 2:22) is the same as worship with a clear conscience (2 Tm. 1:3) (7:918, conscience, Maurer).
Finally, it should not go unnoticed that the Greek word for “serve” in 2 Timothy 1:3 is latreuō which is the worship properly due unto God alone. That rendering latreuō unto the Father with a clean conscience is the same as calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus from a pure heart (cf. 2 Tim. 2:22) demonstrates that the Lord Jesus is worshiped in equality with the Father.
Your assertion against this does not stand.
Marc, I’m going to pass on this one. I simply can’t follow your logic. It’s like saying the bus is red, the balloon is red, therefore the bus is a balloon.
Okay Andrew I will try to simplify it for you. Drawing near to God in supreme worship involves purifying one’s heart (cf. James 4:8). That Paul expresses the necessity of calling on the name of Lord Jesus with a “pure heart” (2 Timothy 2:22) equates with the command given by James to “purify your hearts” in the worship of God.
That supreme worship is properly rendered unto the Lord Jesus is also seen when comparing an Old Testament passage with 2 Timothy 2:22.
For at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech,
that all of them may call upon the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord. (ESV)
2 Timothy 2:22
So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. (ESV)
a. Daniel Whedon: Since thoughts proceed from the heart, the purity or impurity of the lip depends upon the purity or impurity of the heart; therefore, the purification of the lips presupposes the purification of the heart (compare Isaiah 6:7). When heart and lip are cleansed they will “call upon Jehovah,” that is, worship him.
No, if I say to a child, “Speak to your mother respectfully” and “Speak to your teacher respectfully”, that doesn’t mean logically that the mother is the same person as the teacher. You are simply not addressing the fundamental point of interpretation, which is that YHWH assigns a significant part of his sovereignty to his king; therefore people respond to him as one who bears the authority of YHWH.
In your scenario the speaking is done audibly but prayers do not have to be so — they can be done in the silence of the heart from which only God knows. I pointed out elsewhere that fully knowing of the hearts proves the Lord Jesus is omniscient (God) but you refuse to believe how the words of the Bible are properly defined.
Please listen closely to Jesus at John 4:21-24 ….. John 20:17 ….. John 17:3 ……Rev. 3:12
……. John 5: 30 ” “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” God does not take orders and God does His own will, He does not seek to do someone others will. So for Jesus to say the above, shows definitely that Jesus himself is not God. John 20:17 shows that Jesus’ God is the same as our God. We share the same Father as well. Jesus never claimed, nor did he teach, that he himself is God. This is merely the erroneous assumption of people reading into Jesus words what Jesus never said or taught. John 14:1 “Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” Just this statement Jesus made provides proof that Jesus did not consider himself to be God. Those who do not CAREFULLY listen to Jesus, make a huge mistake!
None of the passages you cited teach the Lord Jesus is not God. In John 4:21-24 the same Greek word for worship (proskyneō) is applied unto the Lord Jesus in John 9:38.
Peter Pett: The use elsewhere in John’s Gospel of the word used here is restricted to the worship of God (see especially John 4:20-24).
John 17:3 teaches the Father is the “only” true God in reference to idols. This is how the only true God is always used in Scripture ( (2 Chronicles 15:3; Jeremiah 10:10-11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20-21)
Frederick Danker: of God in contrast to other deities, who are not real J 17:3 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, alēthinos, page 43).
Furthermore, you ignored the fact that the Lord Jesus is called upon in prayer. This demonstrates that He is God.
H. Schonweiss: In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (NIDNTT 2:857, Prayer).
Hello Marc Taylor, The Greek word proskuneo is not always defined as worship as it is only too apparent to see as defined at Revelation 3:9. The reason why proskuneo was not defined the way it was rendered in most Bibles (excepting the King James) at Rev. 3:9 is because the Bible has been mainly translated or copied, through the hands of trinitarians who have concluded (or forced to believe ) that Jesus is God.
Jesus and his disciples never taught such a thing. As I shared earlier, since Jesus is a Jew, he supported the (Shema) belief that the only God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who is the true God of Israel. And that YHWH was One. (Not 2, not 3)
He taught at John 4:21-24 that it is to the Father to whom we are to give our worship to. Again, it is because most of the Bible translators erroneously believed that Jesus is God, and this greatly influenced them by their misconception. So when they read that people proskuneo before Jesus, their personal belief system caused them to define proskuneo as worship when it was associated with Jesus. Instead they should have correctly defined it as many did at Revelation 3:9. So It is clear to see that proskuneo can have other definitions other than worship.
For reference look up Strongs Concordance # 712 in the Greek. It can mean honor, bow, fall down before; prostrate, OR worship.
Just before Jesus ascended to be with the Father in heaven, he instructed his disciples to ask the Father for their help by asking Him in his (Jesus) name. Here is what he said: “And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be made full.” John 16:23-24
Also verses 26-27 “In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you, ” Jesus was preparing his disciples for his departure and he was instructing them that if and when they needed anything, for them to now ask the father but to do so in his name.
So if Jesus disciples continued to ask Jesus for their needs, after his departure, then they were not following Jesus instructions, for he said to now ask the Father in Jesus’ name. So the Lord they were praying to, was to the Father and not to Jesus.
When the scripture speaks of “the spirit of Jesus”, it is referring to the Holy Spirit that had been working in Jesus. (Saying that it was Jesus spirit merely identified which Spirit it was: God’s Holy Spirit which Jesus was given.) For a good example of the disciples praying to God in Jesus name is found at Acts 4:24-30 (and they were not praying to Jesus.)
For reference please look up John 9:38 in the following Bible translations: Youngs Literal Translation, Weymouth New Testament, The Darby Bible translation, and Mace New Testament. Again, you will see that the Greek word proskuneo is not always defined as worship.
John 17:3 is not in reference to only Idols but is in reference of *any person or thing* OTHER THEN The Father (YHWH ) the God of the Jews who is the “only TRUE God.”
YHWH is indeed one but there is nothing that says He can not be a multi-Personal one God.
You were the one who cited John 4:21-23 where the Greek word proskyneō is found. I showed that it can properly apply to Jesus. Since those in Revelation 3:9 also properly receive it then you should not have referenced it at all since it fails to affirm your position.
In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. (NASB)
The context has to do with the apostles not asking the Lord Jesus anymore questions concerning His figurative teachings concerning His resurrection (John 16:18, 30). Their understanding will increase when the Holy Spirit would later be given to them. At that time such questions will no longer be asked.
1. C. K. Barrett: It seems however more probable that in this verse erōtan and aitein are to be distinguished. John always used aitein with the meaning ‘to ask for something’ (see 4.9f.; 11.22; 14.13f.; 15.7, 16; 16.23f., 26) and does upon occasion use erōtan with the meaning ‘to ask a question’ (see 1.19, 21, 25; 9.2, 19, 21; 16.5, 19, 30). This is, in particular, the prevailing usage in this chapter. Moreover, John is drawing out a contrast between the present (the time of the ministry) and the future (‘in that day’). The disciples have not asked Jesus for anything, but in chs. 13-16 they have asked many questions (13.24f., 37; 14.5, 8, 22; 16.17f). John’s meaning seems to be that in the time when the Holy Spirit is given and guides the believers in all the truth they will no longer ask such questions as, What is the meaning of the ‘little while’? of which Jesus speaks (The Gospel According to St. John, Second Edition, page 494).
You affirmed: John 17:3 is not in reference to only Idols but is in reference of *any person or thing* OTHER THEN The Father (YHWH ) the God of the Jews who is the “only TRUE God.”
I have shown both from how the “true God” is used elsewhere in the Bible as well as from the BDAG (3rd Edition) that your assertion is without merit. Here’s another one:
1. K. H. Bartels: in Jn. 17:3, monos is linked with alēthinos, true, in contrast to the deceptive appearance (pseudos) of all alleged gods and revealers (NIDNTT 2:724, One).
Thus your assertion is simply based on your opinion.
Two things that I would like for you to address:
1. Why are you still ignoring the fact that to call upon the name of the Lord in reference to the Lord Jesus means to pray to Him?
2. A priest
a. A priest of God would offer supreme worship to God (Leviticus 1:9).
b. A priest of Baal would offer supreme worship to Baal (2 Kings 10:19).
c. A priest of Zeus would offer supreme worship to Zeus (Acts 14:13).
d. A priest of Christ would offer supreme worship to Christ (Revelation 20:6).
How is “d” in error?
I am really glad to see you take this ‘head on’.
“So the early believers did not think that in calling on the name of the Lord Jesus they were really calling on the name of YHWH.”
It seems very clear by lexical substitution that Jesus is identified with YHWH in the NT, but I concur that the identity seems to be in conflict with itself. Yet, who is the saviour [Isaiah 49:26, Psalms 106:21] and king beside YHWH [Psalms 96-99]?
I find myself holding my peace in tension and trying to resolve the conundrum of Psalms 110-112. Briefly, the double perfect acrostic, 111, and 112, one about the righteous one, and one about YHWH are side by side and a celebration of the victory of 110. (Each acrostic is placed as a celebratory psalm immediately following a significant psalm in the first and last books of the Psalter.) The righteous one is both the Lord and YHWH in a separable unity that presupposes the divine capacity in the human by anointing. Our problem is that this righteousness is too costly for us mortals. In the current stress, as usual, money and safety, both of which staves will pierce your heart if you lean on them, are preferred to the kind of faithfulness that is required to have life and to give it for others.
Is it life that I want, or an understanding that I can live with, without disturbing me too much! The real Paul seems to pay the cost.
(A related problem is the rich and ambiguous imagery of who is ‘the son’ in the OT not to mention who is the anointed and who the servant of G-d.)
Can you reconcile the Paul of 1 Timothy 2 with the narrative/eschatological approach?
Bob, I don’t follow your argument about Psalms 110-112. The “righteous” person in Psalm 112 is not a particular individual—not a messiah or king, certainly not YHWH—but a more generic representative of righteous Jewish living, contrasted with the “wicked man”. And there is no thematic connection with Psalm 110.
You ask “who is the saviour… and king beside YHWH”? But Psalm 110 is not about salvation, it is about judgment and rule, and clearly Israel also had, and expected, a human king.
Yes, Andrew, I agree that the one who fears YHWH is not YHWH. My first comment is too complex.
What strikes me about this pair of psalms is their absolute similarity. E.g.,the phrase צִ֭דְקָתוֹ עֹמֶ֣דֶת לָעַ֑ד, his righteousness stands for ever, is repeated three times in these two psalms. Only here in the whole Bible. 111:3, 112:3, 9
These paired acrostics are a celebration of Psalm 110. It is the function of acrostics in the Psalms to celebrate, even if reluctantly, the psalm immediately preceding it (them). The Psalm pairs 8-10, 34-35, 33,34, 36,37, 110-112, 118,119, 144-145 are key structural elements in the Psalter. The preceding psalms form a chiasm: 8-145, 36-110. It is not a thematic relationship but a structural one.
This puts the question — why and how are the anointed Lord, and YHWH, who do the various actions in the enigmatic verses of Psalm 110 linked with each of the subjects of the following psalms in turn — YHWH in 111, the one who fears YHWH in 112.
I think it is clear that the NT considers 110 to be strongly prescient of Jesus. Hence my linking of the ‘identity’ of YHWH with the one who fears. The human acting in the fear of YHWH does what YHWH does.
A nice post on a subject dear to my heart.
I have been doing a bit of work on the Septuagint’s anarthrous rendering of Kyrios and Kyriou in particular relation to YHWH — have you been interested in this aspect of the divine Name?
Also: I have wanted to know for some time if extra-biblical research into Father-Son name bearing has been carried out in any kind of satisfactory or informative way. Do you know of any?
PS very nice clean layout to your blog. If you drop by mine, please excuse the ugliness of my own!
Thanks, John. I haven’t looked at the question of the article in relation to kurios in the LXX. My assumption would be, on the one hand, that there are too many irregularities for that to be a reliable guide, and on the other, that the New Testament issue is probably not going to be decided at this level.
But I’m open to persuasion.
I can’t help you with the second question either, at least not off the top of my head.
Your book proposal looks interesting. I’m not sure I get the point about a “trinity of design”, and I found the “hub” idea too static for my taste. Does it do justice to the eschatological dynamic? But I’m all in favour of developing a new biblical understanding of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirt. I look forward to reading it!