Table of Contents
- The Shema: A Christianized Confession of One God and One Lord
- Context: Idolatry, Meat, and Monotheism in Pagan Corinth
- A Jewish Background: The Substitution of YHWH
- “From” and “Through”
- “For us, one God the Father” = Shema – Unitarianism?
- “For us, one God the Father” = Shema – Modalism?
- “One God” therefore Jesus is not the One God?
The Shema: A Christianized Confession of One God and One Lord
The Shema, one of the most foundational declarations in Jewish faith, is found in Deuteronomy 6:4 and has had a profound impact on the early Christian creed. In order to understand its Christianized application, it is vital to begin by examining this pivotal passage across three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and English.
Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew:
“שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד”
“Shema Israel, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad.”Deuteronomy 6:4 in Greek (Septuagint):
“ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, κύριος εἷς ἐστιν”
“Akoue Israel, kyrios o theos hemon, kyrios heis estin”Deuteronomy 6:4 in English:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
This passage, recited daily by devout Jews, declares the oneness of God. The Shema is central to Jewish monotheistic belief, affirming that there is only One God.
Context: Idolatry, Meat, and Monotheism in Pagan Corinth
The backdrop to Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 is deeply pastoral, not merely theological. The issue at hand concerns food sacrificed to idols—a recurring dilemma for early Christians in the pagan city of Corinth, where idol worship was interwoven into everyday life. Many converts to Christianity had recently left behind the idolatrous and immoral practices of Greco-Roman religion. Yet, they still faced social pressure: family, friends, and civic life often involved meals in pagan temples or homes where food had been offered to false gods.
Paul begins his response in 1 Corinthians 8:4 by acknowledging a shared truth among mature believers: “We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.” In other words, idols are not real deities—they have no ontological existence as gods. This knowledge, however, must be handled with care. For those with weak consciences—those newly converted or still influenced by their past associations—eating such food could lead them back into spiritual confusion or even idolatry (1 Cor 8:7–13).
This tension resurfaces again in 1 Corinthians 10, where Paul adds more nuance: though idols are not real gods, the sacrifices offered to them are in fact offered to demons (1 Cor 10:20). This reinforces the need for discernment and spiritual vigilance. Christians should not participate in temple feasts—for that would imply communion with demons (10:21). Yet, in the case of buying meat from the market or eating in someone’s home, Paul reassures believers that all food ultimately belongs to the one true God: “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” (1 Cor 10:26, quoting Psalm 24:1). Therefore, such meat can be eaten in good conscience (10:25–27).
What is crucial in this discussion is Paul’s Christological statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6, which arises not in a theoretical debate, but as a practical pastoral response. To affirm that there is “one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ”, is Paul’s way of anchoring Christian ethics and worship in the monotheistic identity of God, now revealed in the Father and the Son. He insists that all of creation—including the meat in question—comes from the Father, through the Son, thus nullifying any claim that idols have ownership or power over anything.
Paul’s deeper concern is also love over knowledge. While it is true that idols are nothing and that food does not commend us to God, Christians must not allow this “knowledge” to puff up (1 Cor 8:1–2), but rather to act in love that builds up. If exercising one’s freedom causes a weaker brother or sister to stumble, then that freedom becomes a source of harm (1 Cor 8:9–13; 10:23–33). In this way, theology and ethics in Paul’s letters are not separate: his affirmation of Jesus’ divine role in creation directly informs how believers are to live in a pluralistic, idol-ridden society.
Christian Shema
It is in this context that Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 8:6 echoes the sentiments found in the Shema but gives it a distinctly Christian flavour:
1 Corinthians 8:6 (Greek):
“ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ.”“all’ hēmîn heîs theòs ho patḗr, ex hoû tà pánta kai hēmeîs eis autón, kai heîs kýrios Iēsoûs Christós, di’ hoû tà pánta kai hēmeîs di’ autoû.”
1 Corinthians 8:6 in English:
“Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”
In this passage, Paul presents a dual proclamation—God the Father as the one God and Jesus Christ as the one Lord. Scholars note that this confession was likely well-established before Paul put it in writing. His brief reference to it, without additional explanation, suggests that it was already a widely accepted belief among Christians. This points to a creedal formula that predated Paul’s letter, a declaration of faith that acknowledges the Father and the Son as integral parts of a unified divine reality.
A Jewish Background: The Substitution of YHWH
Before and during the time of Christ, Jews, out of deep reverence for the divine Name (YHWH), began substituting this sacred name with words like Adonai (in Hebrew), Mar (in Aramaic), and Kyrios (in Greek). This practice was rooted in a desire to avoid the possibility of misusing the divine name, which was considered too holy to be spoken aloud. By the time of the New Testament, the word Kyrios had become synonymous with the Hebrew YHWH in the Greek-speaking Jewish world.
For a Greek-speaking Jew, the term Kyrios heis (One Lord) would have been understood as an equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH echad (The Lord is One). This would have deeply resonated with those familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. The term Kyrios in a particular context, could connect to the divine name, and would have signalled that Jesus Christ shared the same divine identity as YHWH.
Paul’s Christianized Shema might be paraphrased as:
“Hear, O Christians, the Father is our God, and Jesus is our One Jehovah.”
The phrase “one Lord” (εἷς Κύριος, heis Kyrios) as found in the New Testament carries profound theological implications when read against the backdrop of Jewish monotheism. For a Greek-speaking Jew, especially one attuned to the Septuagint and the phonetic rendering of the Hebrew Bible, the expression heis Kyrios would unmistakably refer to YHWH alone. This is because in the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the LXX), YHVH echad becomes Kyrios heis or heis Kyrios—a construction that unmistakably associates this singular “Lord” with Israel’s covenant God, YHWH. Thus, to call someone heis Kyrios was to invoke YHWH Himself. Theologically, the adjectives “one” and “alone” are used in declarations of monotheism. Grammatically, those modifiers simply never appear with human “lords” in Hebrew. To the Jews, those words echo passages such as Zech 14:9 and especially the Deut 6:4:
4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one (heis kyrios)!
– Deuteronomy 6:4
And the Lord shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be—
“The Lord is one,” (kyrios heis)
And His name one.
– Zechariah 14:9
Other scriptures also use the term “Lord” with other exclusive terms:
35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God; there is none other besides Him. – Deut 4:35
39 Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. – Deut 4:39
60 that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other. – 1 Kgs 8:60
6 You alone are the Lord;
You have made heaven,
The heaven of heavens, with all their host,
The earth and everything on it,
The seas and all that is in them,
And You preserve them all.
The host of heaven worships You.
– Nehemiah 9:65 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
– Isaiah 45:5
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other;
Isaiah 45:618 For thus says the Lord,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:
“I am the Lord, and there is no other.
– Isaiah 45:18
In Hebrew, ’Elohim is a plural word that can refer to God or any divine or semi-divine beings—gods, spirits, even powerful judges (cf. Psalm 82:6) depending on the context. Yet when the adjective “one” attaches to it, as in “one ’Elohim,” the meaning is unmistakably clear, it collapses from plurality to singularity and therefore cannot refer to any divine being but only God Almighty. For example: Psalm 86:10 – “For You are great, and do wondrous things; You alone are God.” and Malachi 2:10 – “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another By profaning the covenant of the fathers?” It no longer points to a divine being or a class of beings but to the unique, incomparable deity who is the source of all power. So, the word ’Elohim by itself can describe God or a/many beings; however, one ’Elohim declares that among all who might be called “gods,” there is only one who truly is God.
Another example is Matthew 23:8–10:
“But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.”
With this being said, it clear that although “kyrios” doesn’t automatically mean “YHWH”, “heis Kyrios” most definitely does especially in light of the Septuagint.
The New Testament, however, startlingly applies this very phrase—heis Kyrios—to Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 4:5–6, Paul writes: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all…” Here, the “one Lord” is clearly a reference to Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6), while the “one God” refers to the Father. This dual usage appears not to fragment Jewish monotheism but to intensify it, reconfiguring divine identity around both the Father and the Son.
This raises a critical question: How can Jesus be called “one Lord” if that phrase denotes the unique identity of YHWH in the Jewish Scriptures? The only logical conclusion is that the New Testament authors are not diminishing Yahweh’s uniqueness, but are rather including Jesus within the divine identity. Far from contradicting Jewish monotheism, this claim redefines it in light of the person of Christ.
I delve further into this paradox in my article on Jude 1:4, where the Lordship of Jesus is portrayed in terms that belong solely to God in Jewish thought. The identification of Jesus as “our only Master and Lord” (μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον, monon despotēn kai kyrion), especially as He reigns on the throne of Heaven, again reflects the same pattern of high Christology grounded in the sacred language of Jewish monotheistic worship. This is exactly why the objection of the unitarians [which highlights a key phrase, “whether in heaven or on earth” (1 Cor 8:5) to which they say that in ancient cultures (including Roman and Jewish contexts), rulers could be called ‘gods’ or ‘lords’ without being considered ontologically divine. Therefore, Paul is distinguishing between one true God (the Father) and one exalted human Lord (Jesus)—not co-equal persons of a Trinity, but a single deity and His human Messiah.] falls apart. In my Jude 1:4-5 article, I said:
Finally, we must emphasize that Jude’s reference to Jesus as the only Lord in heaven is of critical importance. The Old Testament makes it abundantly clear that only Yahweh reigns from heaven. As Psalm 2:4 and Psalm 11:4 demonstrate, Yahweh is seated on His throne in heaven, ruling over all creation. No creature shares this position of supreme authority in heaven. The heavenly hosts — the angels — are merely servants of God, acting as ministering spirits (Psalm 104:4, Isaiah 6:1-5, Daniel 7:9-10).
Yet in Revelation 17:14, Jesus is depicted as the “Lord of Lords,” reigning from heaven. This is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament if Jesus is not Yahweh. The very fact that Jude affirms Jesus as the “only Master and Lord” in heaven is a Christological declaration — Jesus is no mere earthly ruler, but He shares the throne of Yahweh in heaven.
In my Hebrews 1:1-4 article, I said:
This phrase echoes the Septuagint’s rendering of Psalm 112:5 LXX (Psalm 113:5 in the Hebrew numbering), which declares:
“Who is like the LORD our God, Who dwells on high (ἐν ὑψηλοῖς)?”…These passages show that “on high” signifies more than just a physical place—it denotes the divine realm of God’s sovereign authority, glory, and reigning power. God alone is enthroned on the throne of Heaven, which distinguishes Him from all the ministers of the angelic realm. This is why it says that God alone is “dwelling on high,” because He alone sits on heaven’s throne.
In short, the application of heis Kyrios to Jesus is not a poetic flourish—it is a theological earthquake. It demands that we read the New Testament not as a departure from the Hebrew Scriptures, but as their radical fulfilment in the person of Jesus, who now reigns in heaven as Yahweh.
“From” and “Through”
It is undeniable that the phrase “from whom are all things” (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) in 1 Corinthians 8:6 refers to the entire created order, as confirmed by its echo in 1 Corinthians 10:25–26, 28. This “all things” (τὰ πάντα) signifies everything that exists, not merely some spiritual or redemptive subset of creation.
If this is the case, then the passage also plainly states that all things are “through” the Son (δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα). Thus, the Son is not only involved in the economy of salvation, but is the divine agent of creation itself, through whom the entire cosmos came into being. This establishes both His eternality and uncreated nature, for only God is Creator, and all else is creation.
This being said, the words “one God…we for Him” and “one Lord…we through Him” can be understood cosmologically or soteriologocally. Cosmologically, we were created and exist for the Father through Jesus. Soteriologically, we are made new creatures for the Father through Jesus. Gregory Sterling, who’s work, Prepositional Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts, is important to mention in this disscusion, he takes the position that the latter clauses are soteriological while the former are cosmologocal: “The first half of each phrase is cosmological; the second half is soteriological”. He alludes to a parralel in 1 Cor 11:12 whert states: “For just as the woman is from the man (ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός), so is the man also through the woman (διὰ τῆς γυναικός)’. That is, the first clause is cosmological (in the Genesis creation, woman (Eve) came through man (Adam)) and the second clause is soteriological (in the new creation, man (Jesus) came through woman (Mary)). Both views are biblical and does not impact the Trinitarian understanding of this passage.
Some object to this by asserting that Jesus, being the Agent rather than the Source, must be ontologically subordinate—less than God. But such reasoning mistakes grammatical distinction for ontological inferiority. The different prepositions—“from” (ἐξ) for the Father and “through” (δι’) for the Son—are not meant to suggest different natures, but different Persons. The use of these terms upholds the personal distinction within the Godhead, not a division of essence or substance. The Father remains the Monarchia—the unoriginate source within the Trinity (hence the “from”—but He does not act apart from the Son (hence the “through”).
Contrary to some interpretations, these prepositional distinctions do not imply that the Father and Son assumed different “roles” in creation in a strictly functional sense. As I argue in my article “God = Energy”, Gregory of Nyssa clarifies that the divine energies—that is, the operations of God—are undivided. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit act as one power and one will. All divine actions are triune actions, even when Scripture highlights the role of one Person. Thus, the expressions “from the Father” and “through the Son” serve only to distinguish the hypostases.
Furthermore, the notion that the preposition “through” implies subordination is demonstrably false. Consider Romans 11:36, which says: “From Him and through Him and to Him are all things”—which for the anti-trinitarians is a reference explicitly to God the Father. If “through” denoted inferiority, this would contradict the exalted status of the Father Himself.
In relation to the Father, Christ is the one through whom all things came to be. But in relation to creation, the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is the one Creator from, through, and in exists all things. Scripture confirms this unity in action (Genesis 1:2, 26–27; Job 33:4 – “The Spirit of God has made me.”; Psalm 104:30 – “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created.”)
Therefore, Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 8:6 reveals a robust Trinitarian theology: the Father and the Son are equally divine, equally involved in creation, yet personally distinct. After explicitly proclaiming the full divinity of Father and Son, to guard against modalism, Paul uses the prepositions “from” and “through” to articulate the distinction of persons.
“Dia” – ‘Through Him’ or ‘Because of Him’
As I’ve shown in my article on Hebrews 1:1-4, some suggest that the Greek word “Dia” (“through Him”) is better translated as “Because of Him”, that is that the Son is the reason for creation, not the agent of creation. I will briefly quote what every lexicon is in agreement with:
Appendix 104 of Bellinger’s Companion Bible:
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
Διά…akin to δίς and Latin dis in composition, properly, denoting a division into two or more parts; a preposition taking the genitive and the accusative…
- With the genitive: through;
I. of place;
1. properly, after verbs denoting an extension, or a motion, or an act, that occurs through any place (Ezeiks note – and the Lexicon goes on to give a bunch of examples such as) δἰ ἀνύδρων τόπων (through dry places), Matthew 12:43; διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας (through Samaria), John 4:4; [Cf. Also Matthew 19:24 (through the eye of a needle); Mark 2:23 (through the corn fields); Mark 11:16 (through the temple) etc…However, when the genitive dia is used in reference to a person, the Lexicon says:] of the instrument used to accomplish a thing, or of the instrumental cause in the stricter sense: — with the genitive of person by the service, the intervention of, anyone; with the genitive of thing, by means of, with the help of, anything;
B. with the accusative
2.of the reason or cause on account of which anything is or is done, or ought to be done; on account of, because of…with the accusative of the person, by whose will, agency, favor, fault, anything is or is done: διὰ τὸν πατέρα… δἰ ἐμέ (properly, because the father lives… because I live (Jn 6:57) [cf. Winer’s Grammar, 399 (373)])… διά with the accusative of a person is often equivalent to for the benefit of, [English for the sake of]: Mark 2:27 (the Sabbath was made for man); John 11:42 (And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it…); John 12:30 (this voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes); 1 Corinthians 11:9 (Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.); Hebrews 1:14 (Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?)…
This is significant because in 1 Cor 8:6, “Dia” is accompanied by the Genitive “οὗ” (hou – Him – “through Him”), not the accusative (“because of Him”). So the Greek is explicit that Jesus is the agent of creation, not merely the reason of creation.
“For us, one God the Father” = Shema – Unitarianism?
Unitarians argue that Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) affirms that Yahweh is our God, and Yahweh is one—clearly identifying Yahweh as God without distinction. They maintain that Paul does reference the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but that the Shema is fully contained in the first clause: “for us there is one God, the Father.” Since, in Deut 6:4 God is Yahweh, and in 1 Cor 8:6 God is the Father, then the Father is the one Yahweh, so what need is there to identify Jesus as the one Yahweh to complete the shema when the shema is fully complete in the Father? The unitarians argue that Paul reaffirms Jewish monotheism by identifying the Father alone as Yahweh, the one God of Israel.
The second clause—“and one Lord, Jesus Christ”—is then seen as a new confession from the unitarian perspective that does not continue the Shema, but rather adds a recognition of Jesus as the exalted Lord (kurios) in the ordinary sense of a master or one with authority. Since Yahweh has already been identified with the Father in the first clause, kurios in the second cannot refer to Yahweh but must denote a subordinate lord, not one who shares the divine identity.
This argument presupposes a crucial point: that “Yahweh” can only apply to a single person. This assumption is never proven; it is simply taken for granted. In logic, this is called begging the question —a fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premise. By presuming that Yahweh must refer to a single person (the Father), the Unitarian argument automatically rules out any Trinitarian reading without examining whether the divine name could apply to more than one person who share the one divine nature.
In contrast, the Trinitarian view holds that “Yahweh” refers to the one undivided substance (Exodus 3:14), whoever possesses that nature may be identified as Yahweh. Thus, calling both the Father “Yahweh” and Jesus “Yahweh” is not a contradiction since they both possess the one undivided substance. As a matter of fact, the Shema is a statement of exclusive monotheism, not a discourse on the internal makeup of God’s being. It does not use terms like “Father,” “Son,” or “Jesus” like Paul does.
“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.”
Its focus is on the uniqueness and oneness of Israel’s God, especially in contrast to the many gods of the nations. It affirms that there is only 1 God and that Yahweh alone is that 1 God, not that Yahweh must be one person.
Rather than denying the Shema, Paul affirms it—and then includes Jesus within the divine identity by applying to him the title “one Lord” (εἷς κύριος), drawn directly from the Shema’s wording. This is not a departure from monotheism (the Shema) but a development of it: a New Testament clarification that the one God of Israel is now known as Father and Son, yet still one in essence. Paul’s wording carefully maintains both divine unity and personal distinction, which is the heart of Trinitarian theology.
To conclude: Deuteronomy 6:4 is Monotheism and 1 Corinthians 8:6 is Binatarianism (2 Divine persons).
“For us, one God the Father” = Shema – Modalism?
The Modalists, on the other hand, argue that if God = Father, and Yahweh = Jesus, and God = Yahweh, then the Father = Jesus. But then this again also commits the fallacy which assumes Yahweh is applicable only to 1 person. In Genesis 5:2, it says, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam [singular, meaning they are 1 Adam], in the day when they were created.” If we use the Modalistic interpretation: Male = Adam; Female = Adam; therefore Male = Female. This is obviously nonsensical. The obvious conclusion here is that both the Male and Female can both be named the 1 Adam (nature) without being the same person, similar to the Trinity.
“One God” therefore Jesus is not the One God?
Some Unitarians argue that in 1 Corinthians 8:6, the phrase “one God” refers exclusively to the Father, meaning Jesus is not included as the one God but is instead the one Lord under God’s authority. I will let John Chrysostom tackle this:
And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say,
Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God does not apply to the Son;observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is calledOne Lord,yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expressionOnehas, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.
So from the perspective of Trinity ad-extra, the Father and the Son are the One God. On the other hand, from the perspective of Trinity ad-intra, because of the Monarchia, if “One God” here means the source of all things, then clearly then Son is not the referent/person of the “One God” because He is begotten and is not the source of Himself. But, as I’ve explained before, this is no way undermines the Triune God because Jesus has derived His nature from the Father hence why He is the “One Jehovah”. In other words, Paul applied “One God” to the Father because He is exclusively the ultimate source, yet lest anyone give a different essence to Christ, Paul affirms that Christ is the “One Jehovah”.
Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski: “The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense“:
“ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST” (1 CORINTHIANS 8:6)
Paul states that Christians know that “there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4 NIV). “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (vv. 5–6 NIV). Verse 6 looks like a creed or confession of faith, which Paul may be quoting or which he may have composed himself (translation ours):
One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we from him;
One Lord, Jesus Christ, and through whom are all things, and we through him.
If Judaism has a creed, it is the Shema (meaning “Hear,” the confession’s first word): “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:4–5). The Septuagint translates the last part of verse 4, “The Lord our God is one Lord” (kyrios heis). In first-century Judaism, the affirmations of “one God” and “one Lord” were synonymous and referred to the same divine being—YHWH, the God of the patriarchs, of Moses, and of the prophets. Jesus affirmed the Shema as the first and greatest commandment (Matt. 22:36–38; Mark 12:28–34; cf. Luke 10:25–28),22 and in that regard his view was in the mainstream of ancient Judaism.
Paul and other New Testatament writers echo the Shema when they affirm that God is one, or that there is “one God” (Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 12:6; Eph. 4:6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).23 Immediately preceding 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul states that the person who “loves God” knows that “there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:3, 4). These statements clearly echo the Shema: “The Lord our God, the Lordis one. You shall love the Lord your God” (Deut. 6:4–5). The references to loving God and believing that God is one in such close conjunction eliminate any reasonable doubt that Paul is drawing here on the Shema. Given this immediate context in verses 3–4, there should be no question about whether verse 6 also alludes to the Shema. The confession “for us there is one God, the Father” (v. 6a) repeats the point already made that “there is no God but one” (v. 4).
None of this would have been surprising or controversial, were it not for what comes next: “and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6b). In the context of an undeniable allusion to the Shema, Paul’s affirmation of “one Lord” is naturally read as also echoing the Shema—yet with the potentially shocking twist that this “one Lord” is Jesus Christ.
Unorthodox religious groups have wildly different takes on 1 Corinthians 8:6. Latter-day Saints agree that Jesus is Jehovah (the “Lord”), but they view the “one Lord” as a second deity inferior to the “one God,” and both of them as members of a larger group of many “Gods” and “Lords.” We have already explained why this interpretation is untenable (pp. 406–7).
Oneness Pentecostals also agree that Jesus is Jehovah, but they understand this to mean something almost diametrically opposite the LDS view. According to the Oneness doctrine, Jesus is God the Father manifest or revealed in human flesh. “We have a dual reference to the one God of Israel who is the creator but who has been revealed in a new way as the Lord Jesus Christ.”24 Such a doctrine cannot be derived from Paul’s epistles but must be superimposed on them. Paul consistently distinguished between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in quite personal and relational terms, affirming that God the Father sent his Son (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4). Later in this same epistle, Paul states that Christ will deliver the kingdom “to the God and Father” (1 Cor. 15:24 LEB), which clearly distinguishes Christ personally from the person called “the God and Father.”
By contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians both insist that 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not mean that Jesus is Yahweh, the “one Lord” of the Shema. Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that Paul teaches here that Christ existed before creation, but they regard Christ as God’s “junior partner” in creation.25 Unitarian author Anthony Buzzard interprets “Lord” in this text as if it were synonymous with “Messiah” and as meaning that God exalted the man Jesus: “The amazing new thing that has happened is not that the Jewish creed has been expanded to include a second person as Deity, but that God has elevated a unique man, His Son, to the position of honor at God’s right hand.”26
New Testament scholar James McGrath has offered the most sophisticated defense of a Unitarian-like reading of 1 Corinthians 8:4–6. McGrath admits that Paul is alluding to the Shema: “We are of course in no way denying that the Shema is in mind in 1 Corinthians 8, and that Jesus is being related to it.”27 He argues, though, that the reference to Jesus as “one Lord” is not part of Paul’s use of the Shema but is rather an additional affirmation of Jesus as God’s mediatorial representative and ruler. He asserts that “we would surely have expected Paul to express himself differently” had he meant to identify Jesus as the one God of the Shema. For example, Paul “could have written, ‘There is one God: the Father, from whom are all things, and the Son, through whom are all things.’”28 This would make McGrath’s point in English, with its convenient use of the colon, but it would have not said what McGrath is suggesting in ancient Greek, which ran words together with no spaces and rarely used any sort of punctuation. In any case, this is essentially an a priori objection, complaining that Paul would not have used the Shema in the way suggested and if he had he should have done it differently.29
McGrath proposes that 1 Corinthians 8:5 distinguishes “gods” as heavenly figures from “lords” as their earthly representatives, setting up verse 6 to distinguish between the Father as God and Jesus as his representative Lord.30 He presents the following outline in support of this explanation:
in heaven . . . or on earth
many gods . . . many lords
one God . . . one Lord
The main problem with this explanation is that Paul refers to the “gods” as being both in heaven and on earth: “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth” (1 Cor. 8:5 NASB). Thus, Paul does not distinguish between “gods” in heaven and “lords” on earth, but in fact uses them as synonymous designations of deity: “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” (1 Cor. 8:5 NASB). Here Paul’s reference to the “so-called gods” is restated as referring to “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’” thus showing that “god(s)” and “lord(s)” in this context are synonymous terms for deity.
To buttress his interpretation, McGrath cites an Old Testament text as another example of a text supplementing the Shema: “For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you . . . And who is like your people Israel, the one nation on earth whom God went to redeem to be his people . . . ?” (2 Sam. 7:22–23). McGrath is sarcastic: “I doubt whether anyone has ever suggested that in this passage the people of Israel are being included in the Shema.”31 Quite so, but this is because “the one nation on earth whom God went to redeem to be his people” is obviously not even remotely synonymous with “God,” whereas “Lord” (Greek, kyrios) is the standard title used in Jewish and Christian Greek writings of the period to represent the divine name emphasized in the Shema itself!
McGrath is correct that one should not just assume that the title “Lord” always represents the divine name,32 but as a rebuttal to the argument made by numerous New Testament scholars his objection is knocking down a straw man. At least four converging factors confirm beyond reasonable doubt that “one Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 alludes to the Shema. (1) In the same epistle, Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus as “Lord” using Old Testament texts about Yahweh, as we have shown (1 Cor. 1:2, 8, 31; 6:11; 10:20–22; etc.). (2) The references to “one God” in the immediate context (8:4, 6a) undeniably allude to the Shema. (3) “Lord” and “God” are both translations of divine names used in the Shema (Deut. 6:4). (4) Paul uses these two names in parallel expressions: “one God . . . one Lord.” What makes this last point especially compelling is that in the Shema, the numerical description “one” actually qualifies the noun “Lord” (Heb., YHWH): “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4). In a sentence that admittedly echoes the Shema, the expression “one Lord” can hardly fail to be part of that echo.
“However, Paul establishes the Christological significance of the Shema‘ most pointedly in 1 Cor 8:1–6. His polemic against idolatry in this text is obviously rooted in Deut 6:4–5 and beyond. The first hint of a connection surfaces in verse 3, where Paul, who has a lot to say about God’s love for people, inserts a relatively rare reference to people loving God. On first sight, in verse 4 Paul appears to appeal to the Shema‘, but a more direct antecedent for, ‘There is no God but one,’ had come at the end of Moses’ first address, in Deut 4:35, 39, with his explicit declaration, ‘Yahweh, he is God, there is no other.’ Firmly in the tradition of Moses, Paul hereby declares the uniqueness and exclusive existence of Yahweh in contrast to the nothingness of idols, which is a very deuteronomistic theme.
“His comments in verses 5–6 reflect a thorough understanding of the Shema‘ in its original context. For the sake of argument, he declares hypothetically that even if one concedes the existence of other gods (which, in the light of verse 4, he is obviously not actually willing to do), ‘but for us (all‘ hemin) there is but one God (heis theos), the Father, from whom all things came (cf. Deut 32:6, 18) and for whom we live (cf. Deut 14:1); and there is but one Lord (heis kyrios), Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.’ Translated into its original context on the plains of Moab, this is precisely the sort of thing that Moses could have said: ‘Even if one concedes the existence of other gods (which in the light of Deut 4:35, 39 he is obviously unwilling to do), but for us there is but one God, our Father (cf. Deut 1:31; 14:1; 32:6, 18), from whom all things came (cf. Gen 1:1–2:4a) and for whom we live (cf. Exod 19:5–6); his name is Yahweh, through whom all things came (Exod 20:11; 31:17), and through whom we live (Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6).’ What is remarkable in Paul, however, is his insertion of the name ‘Jesus Christ’ after kyrios, which, on first sight, reflects Hebrew ‘Yahweh’ of the Shema‘. However, in view of his reference to ‘many gods’ and “many lords’ in verse 5, here he appears to have in mind the title ‘adonay rather than the personal name Yahweh. But the Christological effect is extraordinary. In the words of N. T. Wright,
“Paul has placed Jesus within an explicit statement of the doctrine that Israel’s God is the one and only God, the creator of the world. The Shema was already, at this stage of Judaism, in widespread use as the Jewish daily prayer. Paul has redefined it christologically, producing what we can only call a sort of Christological monotheism.
As Richard Bauckham points out, 1 Corinthians 8:6 uses every word of the Shema (excluding the introductory formula “Hear, O Israel”) in some form—assuming we include the word “Lord.”33 That is, the words that form the confession “the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4)34 all appear in the Pauline confession “to us one God . . . one Lord.” There are four key words in the confession of the Shema: “Lord” (representing the divine name Yahweh, as just explained), “God,” “one,” and “our”; these words all appear in Paul’s confession in 1 Corinthians 8:6 (with the dative of the personal pronoun hēmin, “to us,” instead of the genitive hēmōn, “our”). An echo or allusion to the Shema need not use the noun “Lord,” but if it is there—particularly qualified by the word “one”—it cannot plausibly be excluded from the echo. After all, “Lord” (YHWH) is the one word repeated in the Shema.
Bauckham is correct when he says, “If he [Paul] were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema‘ speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism.”35 For Paul to add to the Shema a confession of any mere creature as “Lord” alongside the one God, as McGrath maintains, would be in reality to affirm belief in two deities. The same problem attaches to the polemical argument of Unitarian apologists like Buzzard. In their zeal to defend monotheism, they inadvertently argue for de facto two divine beings, one of which is subordinate to the other.
21. Similarly Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts, 149–51.
22. The Gospels also allude to the Shema in Mark 2:7; 10:18; cf. Matthew 19:17; Luke 5:21.
23. See also Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Jude 25.
24. Bernard, Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ, 124.
25. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 14; see also Reasoning from the Scriptures, 411.
26. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 250.
27. McGrath, Only True God, 40.
28. McGrath, Only True God, 40.
29. Likewise in James F. McGrath, “Trinitarians without Colons? Rob Bowman on 1 Corinthians 8:4–6,” Religion Prof (blog), May 25, 2010, a response to an earlier version of this critique of his interpretation of the text.
30. McGrath, Only True God, 41.
31. McGrath, Only True God, 42.
32. McGrath, “Trinitarians without Colons?”
33. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 28; see further 27–30, 97–104, 210–18.
34. The Hebrew has no verb “is” expressed here, though the LXX translation does.
35. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 28.
(Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense [Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024], Part 3: The Name of Jesus: Jesus’ Divine Names, Chapter 25: “Lord” as the Divine Name of Jesus, pp. 496-500)
ANSWERING ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE CONCLUSION
The idea that Paul, the earliest Christian writer, identified Jesus as Yahweh has met with stiff resistance from many scholars. An interesting example is James Dunn, who in one of his last books acknowledges that Paul “was quite happy to take references to Yahweh and refer them to the Lord Jesus,” citing the use of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:9–13 and the use of Isaiah 45:21–23 in Philippians 2:9–11.36 After giving other examples of texts identifying Jesus as God in other ways (Rom. 9:5; Col. 1:15–17, 19), Dunn comments, “It looks very much, then, that Paul was so convinced that God had acted through Christ that he did not hold back on some occasions from identifying Christ with God.”37 Yet after all this, citing just one passage (1 Cor. 15:24–28), Dunn walks back his comment, saying that in this passage Paul “expressed himself more carefully,” as though Paul’s enthusiasm had gotten the better of him in all of the other passages.38
We will discuss 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, perhaps the most popular passage from Paul’s epistles cited against the doctrine of the deity of Christ, in chapter 38 (pp. 741–43). For now, we would simply point out that this passage does not even use the title kyrios and certainly does not deny that Jesus is Yahweh incarnate. It is not legitimate to pit one passage in an author’s writings against numerous other passages, especially when the one does not deny what the others affirm. If anything, for example, Paul’s many references throughout 1 Corinthians to Jesus as “Lord” in ways that clearly quote from or allude to Old Testament texts about the Lord Yahweh should be given priority when seeking to interpret one passage in the epistle popularly thought to conflict with those references. See Table 16 for a list of these Pauline texts (with the references for direct quotations or citations shown in bold italics).
| Paul’s “Lord” Texts about Jesus | “YHWH” Citations/Allusions/Motifs |
| Rom. 10:9–13, quote in v. 13 | Joel 2:32, “call on the name of the Lord” |
| Rom. 14:6–9; 2 Cor. 5:15 | Living and dying, eating, observing special days, “for the Lord”: Exod. 12:42; 16:23; Num. 9:10–14; Deut. 16:1 |
| 1 Cor. 1:2 “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” | Calling on the name of the Lord: Joel 2:32, etc. |
| 1 Cor. 1:8 “day of our Lord Jesus Christ”; also 1 Cor. 5:4–5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1–2; 2 Tim. 1:18 | “Day of the Lord”: Joel 2:31; cf. 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:14; Isa. 13:8–9; Ezek. 13:5; 30:3; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14; Mal. 4:5 |
| 1 Cor. 1:31 (cf. 2:2, 8); also 2 Cor. 10:17; cf. Gal. 6:14; Phil. 3:3 | Jer. 9:23–24, boast in the Lord |
| 1 Cor. 2:16 | Isa. 40:13, the mind of the Lord |
| 1 Cor. 4:4–5; cf. 11:32; 2 Cor. 5:10 | The Lord alone knows and discloses what is in human hearts: 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chron. 28:9; Pss. 96:13; 139:23–24; Prov. 16:2; Jer. 17:10 |
| 1 Cor. 5:4–5 | Israel was the congregation or assembly of the Lord: Deut. 23:2–9; 1 Chron. 28:8; Mic. 2:5; etc. |
| 1 Cor. 6:11 | People justified in the Lord: Isa. 45:25 |
| 1 Cor. 7:32–35 | Pleasing the Lord: Exod. 15:26; Deut. 6:18 |
| 1 Cor. 8:4–6 | Deut. 6:4 (the Shema): One God, one Lord, expanded to include Jesus as deity |
| 1 Cor. 10:21–22 | “Table of the Lord” not to be defiled: Mal. 1:7, 12; the Lord’s exclusive worship, not to be provoked to jealousy: Deut. 32:21 |
| 1 Cor. 16:22–23 | Love the Lord: Deut. 6:5 |
| Phil. 2:9–11 | Ps. 97:9, “highly exalted” above all gods (hyperypsōthēs); Isa. 45:23, “every knee should bow and every tongue confess” |
| Eph. 5:18–20 | Singing “to the Lord”: Exod. 15:21; Judg. 5:3; 1 Chron. 16:23; Pss. 7:17; 9:11; 92:1; 95:1; 96:2; 104:33; Isa. 42:10 |
| Eph. 6:1–4 | “Discipline of the Lord”: Deut. 11:2; Prov. 3:11 |
| Eph. 6:5–10; cf. Acts 20:19; Rom. 12:11 | Serving the Lord: Pss. 100:2; 102:22 |
| 2 Cor. 5:10–11; Col. 3:22–25; cf. Eph. 5:21 | “Fear of the Lord”: Deut. 6:13; 10:20; Prov. 1:7; 2:5; 9:10; Isa. 8:12–13; etc. |
| 1 Thess. 3:13 | Coming of the Lord will all his holy ones: Zech. 14:5 |
Another way around understanding Paul as identifying Jesus as Yahweh is to argue that Jesus has the name “Yahweh” only in a sense comparable to the angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament, particularly Yahweh’s statement to the Israelites regarding the angel, “Behold, I send an angel before you. . . . Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him” (Exod. 23:20–21). Some Unitarians appeal to this text to show that Jesus has been “given” the name Yahweh only in the sense that Jesus, like that angel, acts as Yahweh’s representative.39 Similarly, J. R. Daniel Kirk argues that Jesus has God’s name in the way that Micah prophesied, that the Messiah would “shepherd his flock . . . in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God” (Mic. 5:4). According to Kirk, this means only that this messianic figure is pictured “functioning with the imprimatur of the divine name.”40
The appeal to Exodus 23:20–21 presupposes that the “angel” there is not actually Yahweh or a visible manifestation of Yahweh, a presupposition that continues to be vigorously debated. In any case, the main difficulty for these interpretations is that the specific Old Testament texts cited in their support play no role in references to Jesus as “Lord” in Paul’s epistles or anywhere else in the New Testament. For example, although Mark 1:2 probably alludes in part to Exod. 23:20, the reference to Jesus as “Lord” in Mark 1:3 comes from Isa. 40:3, where no angelic figure is involved.41 Nor do we find anyone in the New Testament saying that the Father’s name was “in” Jesus. Instead, we find repeated confessions of faith that proclaim that “Jesus is Lord” and lines of argument that depend for their cogency on the equation of Jesus as kyrios with the one called kyrios in such texts as Joel 2:32 (Rom. 10:9–13) and Isaiah 45:23 (Phil. 2:9–11). Thus, this line of criticism in effect skirts the actual Old Testament sources of the New Testament references to Jesus as Lord in favor of cherry-picked texts that play no role in that usage.
Finally, some scholars appeal to an isolated statement in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13), the Dead Sea Scroll document we discussed when we presented a case for a strong monotheism especially in the New Testament.42 One translation of the relevant line states, “this is the time decreed for ‘the year of Melchiz[edek]’s favor’ (Isa. 61:2, modified)” (11QMelch 2.9).43 This statement alludes to Isaiah 61:2, which speaks of “the year of Yahweh’s favor” (LEB), and according to this translation substitutes the name Melchizedek for Yahweh. On the assumption that 11QMelchizedek was not actually identifying Melchizedek as Yahweh, this text is sometimes cited as precedent for not understanding Paul or other New Testament writers to be identifying Jesus as Yahweh.44
In response, we first note that there are several reasons to be cautious about making too much of the statement in 11QMelch 2.9. As we mentioned in our earlier discussion of this document, it is extremely tattered and incomplete, making its interpretation all the more difficult. Competent scholars have proposed almost every imaginable interpretation as to the identity of “Melchizedek” in this document—human priest or ruler, Michael the archangel or other angelic figure, or indeed Yahweh himself. These difficulties make it highly problematic to use this text as precedent for reading Paul’s references to Jesus as Lord as meaning only that he is the Lord’s representative.45
Second, 11QMelch 2.9 may not substitute the name Melchizedek for Yahweh after all. Let’s look at the line again, this time more fully and in a different translation: “It is the time for the ‘year of grace’ of Melchizedek, and of [his] arm[ies, the nat]ion of the holy ones of God, of the rule of judgment.”46 Notice that the text refers to the year of grace (or favor) “of Melchizedek and of his armies.” Grammatically, “Melchizedek” and “his armies” stand in the same relation to the “year of favor/grace,”47 yet no one suggests that “his armies” also take the place of the divine name in a quotation of Isaiah 61:2. As David Capes comments, “Since ‘for/of Melchizedek’ is co-ordinated with ‘for/of his armies, the people of the holy ones of God,’ Melchizedek cannot be substituted for YHWH without also substituting his armies for him as well.” Capes (following a suggestion by Richard Bauckham) proposes reading the text “with Melchizedek and his people taken as the rightful and sole recipients of this divine favor.”48
Finally, regardless of how 11QMelchizedek 2.9 is interpreted, it is nothing like the texts we have discussed in this and the preceding chapter. Specifically, we have not appealed to any New Testament text that quotes from or alludes to an Old Testament text but replaces the divine name with the name “Jesus.” We do not find New Testament texts saying things like “Prepare the way of Jesus” or “Whoever will call on the name of Jesus will be saved.” Conversely, we do not find statements in 11QMelchizedek like “Melchizedek is Yahweh,” whereas Paul presents the statement “Jesus is Lord” (in contexts where “Lord,” kyrios, clearly stands for the divine name YHWH) as a confessional statement epitomizing what the earliest Christians proclaimed and believed (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor. 4:5; Phil. 2:11). Nor do the Dead Sea Scrolls contain numerous references to Melchizedek forming a pattern of identifying him with Yahweh. There simply is no justification for using this anomalous, non-Christian text produced by an idiosyncratic Jewish sect to try to explain away what Paul repeatedly says.
Indeed, there is evidence throughout Paul’s epistles that he considered Jesus Christ to be the “Lord” Yahweh. We have focused primarily on three passages (Rom. 10:9–13, cf. Joel 2:32; 1 Cor. 8:4–6, cf. Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:9–11, cf. Isa. 45:23) and mentioned several others. Careful exegesis of these three texts shows that this interpretation is correct in each case. Beyond those three texts, however, there is the cumulative weight of so many statements in which Paul speaks about Jesus as “Lord” in this same way. Table 16 gives a list of such texts from ten of Paul’s thirteen epistles.
The basic confession of early Christianity that “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11) turns out to entail the most astonishing and radical claim that first-century Jews might have made: that the crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, was Jehovah.
36. Dunn, Jesus according to the New Testament, 133.
37. Dunn, Jesus according to the New Testament, 134.
38. Dunn, Jesus according to the New Testament, 134.
39. E.g., Perry, “Philippians 2:5–11—Revisited,” [21].
40. Kirk, Man Attested by God, 108.
41. See our earlier discussion of Mark 1:2–3 (pp. 473–74).
42. See p. 409.
43. Michael O. Wise, §154, “The Coming of Melchizedek: 11Q13,” in Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, trans. Wise, Abegg, and Cook, 592 (brackets and parentheses in Wise’s translation).
44. E.g., Kirk, Man Attested by God, 122, 138.
45. So also David B. Capes, “Jesus’ Unique Relationship with Yhwh in Biblical Exegesis: A Response to Recent Objections,” in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, NovTSup 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 93–94.
46. “11Q13 (11QMelch) 11Qmelchizedek,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ed. Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eilbert J. C. Tigchelaar (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1207.
47. Both “Melchizedek” and “his armies” are prefixed with ל) l-), meaning “of ” or “for.” The grammatical parallel is obscured in Wise’s translation, “for ‘the year of Melchiz[edek]’s favor’ (Isa. 61:2, modified) and for [his] hos[ts]” (emphasis added); Wise, “The Coming of Melchizedek: 11Q13,” in Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. Wise, Abegg, and Cook, 592.
48. Capes, “Jesus’ Unique Relationship with Yhwh in Biblical Exegesis,” 95–96. (Ibid., pp. 500-504; emphasis mine)
“THROUGH WHOM ARE ALL THINGS” (1 CORINTHIANS 8:6)
As we have already mentioned, the earliest New Testament reference to Christ’s role in creation appears in 1 Corinthians:
For us there is one God, the Father,
from whom are all things
and for whom we live,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things
and through whom we live. (1 Cor. 8:6 NET)
Hardly anyone will dispute that the confession of “one God, the Father, from whom are all things,” which uses the standard expression ta panta (“all things”) for the universe, refers to the Father as the source of creation, the one from whom all created things originate. The tight parallel structure of the text will not allow for the second reference to “all things” that are through Jesus Christ to be anything different.
The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is complicated somewhat by its terseness. In fact, the text here uses no verbs at all; a literal translation would run as follows:
For us one God, the Father,
from whom all things and we for him,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom all things and we through him
This terse wording is the form of a confession, an expression of religious devotion. Anders Eriksson explains, “We find the style typical for religious confessions: relative clauses, relative pronouns for Him who is praised, a deliberate concern for brevity in the verbless clauses, appositions, and predications of the divinity.”21
The addition of the words “and we for him . . . and we through him” are sometimes translated “and we exist for Him . . . and we exist through Him” (e.g., NASB; see also ESV, NRSV). This translation certainly captures at least part of the idea: the affirmations “from whom [are] all things” and “through whom [are] all things” refers not just to the initial creation of the cosmos but to the existence of all created things throughout the history of the cosmos. In other words, Paul is speaking of both the initial creation event and the subsequent history of creation governed by divine providence.
Paul’s words “we for him . . . and we through him” likely go even further. The repeated plural pronoun “we” ties back to the plural pronoun “us” at the beginning of Paul’s statement, which refers specifically to Christian believers, those who confess and place their faith in the Father as God and Jesus Christ as Lord. In this context, to say that “we” are “for” the Father is to confess that as redeemed people we now live for the purpose of glorifying the Father as “one God.” Likewise, to say that “we” are “through” Jesus Christ is to confess that this purpose is realized as a result of what he has done on our behalf.22 Thus, Paul is not here assigning the work of creation exclusively to the Father any more than he is assigning the work of redemption (or the new creation) exclusively to Jesus Christ. Rather, Paul is confessing that the Father and Jesus Christ have active and complementary roles in both creation and redemption.23
Paul uses different prepositions in reference to the roles of the Father and Jesus Christ, saying that all things are “from” (ex) the Father and “through” (di’) Jesus Christ. Some interpreters have seen in this variation evidence that the Son performed an inferior or lesser role in creation. New Testament scholar Robert M. Grant, for example, comments that in 1 Corinthians 8:6, “The supreme Father resembles the supreme Zeus, while the work of the Lord Christ is like that of the various demiurgic gods to whom cosmic functions were assigned.”24 Similarly, Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the different prepositions in 1 Corinthians 8:6 as indicating that Jesus Christ was God’s “junior partner, as it were,” in the work of creation.25 If this understanding of Paul were correct, it would mean that he had abandoned the Jewish position that the Lord God is the sole Maker of all things. However, this way of reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 is mistaken.
First, as we saw earlier (pp. 496–500), Paul has taken the words of the Shema (Deut. 6:4), the classic Jewish affirmation of monotheism, and reframed it to refer to the Father and the Son. The application of the words “one Lord” to Jesus Christ echoes that foundational Jewish confession, which in the Septuagint reads, “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4 NETS). This allusion demonstrates that Paul is not distinguishing two deities, the supreme deity and a lesser one. Rather, he is distinguishing within the nature or being of the one Lord God of Judaism two persons, the Father and Jesus Christ.
Second, the argument from the different prepositions (ek or ex, “from,” the Father; dia, “through,” the Son) fails to come to terms with the way ancient writers, including Paul himself, used these prepositions in reference to creation. Compare 1 Corinthians 8:6 with Paul’s confession about God in Romans (translating both literally):
| Romans 11:36 | 1 Corinthians 8:6 |
| For from him [ex autou] and through him [di’ autou] and for him [eis auton] all things [ta panta] | For us one God, the Father, from whom [ex hou] all things [ta panta] and we for him [eis autou], and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [di’ hou] all things [ta panta] and we through him [di’ autou] |
Notice that the same three prepositions translated here as “from,” “through,” and “for” (ex [ek], di’ [dia], and eis) appear in both texts, each followed by the pronoun “whom” (hou) or “him” (autou), and both concern “all things” (ta panta). These two texts come from the same author and were written around the same time (1 Corinthians ca. 55/56, Romans ca. 57). Given those commonalities and the indisputable understanding that “from whom/him” and “for him” mean the same things in both texts, we should surely understand “through whom/him” to have the same meaning in both texts as well.
In order to understand Paul’s use of these prepositions, it will be helpful to discuss their use in Greco-Roman philosophy. Various schools of thought, including Aristotelianism and Platonism, made use of these Greek prepositions or their Latin equivalents to express various sorts of “causal” relations. Modern thought typically understands a cause as an event that immediately precedes and brings about another event. However, the classic definition of the Greek word aitia, usually translated “cause,” was “that because of which,” a definition given by Plato and the Stoics Zeno and Chrysippus, among others.26 Within this broad definition Aristotle famously delineated four categories of causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. For example, in the case of the material cause, “that out of which a thing comes to be and which persists, is called ‘cause,’ e.g., the bronze of the statue” (Physics 2.3, 194b23–35).27
In the first century AD, the Stoic philosopher Seneca—a contemporary of the apostle Paul—used the statue to illustrate these four causes. A statue’s material cause is the bronze from which it is made; the formal cause is the statue’s shape corresponding to the figure it represents; the efficient cause or “agent” is the artist (or sculptor) who made it; and the final cause is the purpose for which it was made (whether for money, fame, religious devotion, or something else). Seneca (who, as a Stoic, did not himself agree with calling all these distinctions “causes”) summarized these causes and a fifth one attributed to Plato with Latin phrases using five different prepositions: “that out of which [id ex quo], that by which [id a quo], that in which [id in quo], that in accordance with which [id ad quod], that for the sake of which [id propter quod]” (Seneca, Ep. 65.8).28
The Loeb Classical Library edition translates these five phrases as follows: “the material, the agent, the make-up, the model, and the end in view.”29 In the second century, the Roman emperor and Stoic author Marcus Aurelius praised the Universe or Nature: “from thee are all things, in thee are all things, to thee all things return” (ek sou panta, en soi panta, eis se panta, 4.23).30 Of course, this sounds remarkably similar to Romans 11:36, though Paul was praising the personal Creator of the universe, not the Universe itself. As Gregory Sterling, in an influential essay on the subject, notes, “The emperor emphasizes the unity of the cosmos by applying different prepositional phrases to nature; he makes no move to connect the prepositional phrases with different causes. This appears to be a standard Stoic formulation.”31 Sterling’s thesis is that Greek “prepositional metaphysics” in Stoicism and Platonism was adapted in Hellenistic Jewish wisdom literature in the service of articulating the Jewish theistic worldview and made its way from there into the New Testament.
Because Jews and Christians had a different worldview than Greek philosophers, they used some of the prepositions with different meanings. Thus, whereas the Greeks typically used the preposition ek or ex to express the material cause (e.g., a statue was made “out of ” bronze), in Paul it identifies God as the ultimate source (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6). What is quite clear, however, is that Paul (and other New Testament authors) employs such “prepositional metaphysics” in regard to the universe or cosmos.
In Romans 11:36, Paul uses the preposition di’ (dia) in reference to one aspect of God’s relation to the universe of “all things.” Thomas Schreiner accurately paraphrases Paul’s statement: “God is the source of all things, the means by which all things are accomplished, and the goal of all things.”32 The middle clause expresses what scholars variously call the efficient or instrumental cause—that which directly brought about the effect. As Bauckham puts it, “God was his own instrumental cause in his work of creating and sustaining all things.”33 Elsewhere, Paul can use dia to express God’s direct role in various works (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:1, 9; 6:14). Michael and Rachel Aubrey, linguists at Wycliffe Bible Translators, comment on 1 Corinthians 1:9, “The high frequency usage of διά [dia] in speech verb (passive) constructions allows for the grammaticalization of διά without reference to an intermediary. In this instance, there is no other potential agent for whom God could be acting as intermediary.”34
In this light, we should understand the words “through whom all things” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 to mean that Jesus Christ is the agent who directly made and sustains all things. Even if we interpret the text as distinguishing the roles of the Father and the Son, the use of “prepositional metaphysics” in this text shows that it is not crediting Jesus Christ with a secondary or inferior role in these works. Rather, in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul assigns two of the (“causal”) functions of God (expressed in Romans 11:36) to the Father and the third to Christ. Just as 1 Corinthians 8:6 applies the Shema to both the Father as “one God” and Jesus Christ as “one Lord,” so also it applies the Hellenistic Jewish confession that all things are from, through, and for God to both the Father and Christ.35
21. Anders Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians, ConBNT 29 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998), 120 (see 120–23).
22. McDonough, Christ as Creator, 151–52.
23. Richard Bauckham, “Confessing the Cosmic Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:15–20),” in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Novenson, 143–44.
24. Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, LEC 1, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 112. Greg Stafford cites this statement with approval in Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, 2nd ed., 201.
25. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 14.
26. R. J. Hankinson, Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 185–86, 242.
27. Aristotle, “Physics,” trans. R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye, in The Works of Aristotle, 2nd ed., Great Books of the Western World 7, eds. Robert Maynard Hutchens and Mortimer J. Adler (Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1990), 271.
28. Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, trans. Richard M. Gummere, Vol. 1, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1918), 448 (lit. trans.).
29. Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, 449.
30. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, in Plato, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, ed. Charles W. Eliot, trans. George Long, Harvard Classics 2 (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1917), 217.
31. Gregory Sterling, “Prepositional Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts,” in Wisdom and Logos: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor of David Winston, eds. David T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling, SPhiloA 9, BJS 312 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 223.
32. Thomas Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 637–38.
33. Bauckham, “Confessing the Cosmic Christ,” 146.
34. Michael G. Aubrey and Rachel E. Aubrey, “Construing Agency and Cause in Passive Constructions,” in Postclassical Greek Prepositions and Conceptual Metaphor: Cognitive Semantic Analysis and Biblical Interpretation, ed. William A. Ross and Steven E. Runge, FoSub 12 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2022), 209–40, accessed at Perlego.com.
35. Bauckham, “Confessing the Cosmic Christ,” 144–46. (Ibid., Part 4: Doing What Only God Does: Jesus’ Divine Deeds, Chapter 32: The Son as Maker and Sustainer of All Things, pp. 608-612; emphasis mine)