Some Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 8:6 and the Shema

Introduction

For a long time, it has seemed to me that 1 Cor 8:6 is the most explicit statement of biblical unitarianism that one can find in the NT. It seemed like the obvious choice for the title page of One God the Father.[1] Paul gives a clear statement of Christian monotheism (“there is one God”). Then puts a conjunction (“and”). Then he gives a clear statement of Christian devotion[2] to Jesus (“there is one Lord Jesus Christ”). He does not need to say “Jesus is not God”, as this was not a live question in Paul’s day, but comes as near to saying that as he may by separating out Jesus from the unique divine identity. Yet this gives rise to something of a puzzle because there are a number of prominent NT scholars, such as Richard Bauckham and N. T. Wright, who would claim that Paul is doing exactly the reverse.

These scholars argue that in 1 Cor 8:6 Paul not only alludes to the Shema (Deut 6:4) but adapts it to place Jesus within it. [3] Bauckham writes “the only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema”.[4] Wright explains “Paul has glimpsed the astonishing truth that this one true God is now to be known as ‘the father’; that this one true Lord is now to be known as ‘Jesus the Messiah’ ”.[5] For these scholars the fundamental statement of Jewish monotheism has been transformed into a fundamental statement of Christian binitarianism. Wright concludes “this is possibly the single most revolutionary christological formulation in the whole of early Christianity, staking out a high Christology founded within the very citadel of Jewish monotheism”.[6]

Shema

Scholars like Bauckham and Wright argue that the Shema in Hebrew permits a number of interpretations. It may be intended to affirm the unity of God (“the LORD is one”) or to affirm Israelite monolatry (“the LORD is our God, the LORD alone”).[7] By the Second Temple period the Shema was understood as a clear statement of monotheism, affirming the unity and uniqueness of God, as the LXX would seem to make clear insofar as it is a witness to the OG:

a;koue Israhl ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n ku,rioj ei-j evstin (Deut 6:4 LXX)

The early Christians, as expressed in the NT, accepted this interpretation and its implications. The rendering of Deut 6:4, whether direct translation from Hebrew or not, matches exactly the interpretation given in the LXX: [8]

a;koue Israhl ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n ku,rioj ei-j evstin (Mark 12:29)

These early Christians accepted Jewish monotheism without reservation.

1 Corinthians 8:6

1 Corinthians 8:6 is often seen as an allusion to the Shema. It is probably uncontroversial that 1 Cor 8:6 alludes to the ideas expressed in the Shema; Paul is affirming the monotheism of his forebears. It seems a facile exercise to try and see textual allusion here; clearly Paul uses the words “God” and “Lord” and “one” but that doesn’t seem to prove very much. The order and context is different:

avllV h`mi/n ei-j qeo.j o` path.r evx ou- ta. pa,nta kai. h`mei/j eivj auvto,n( kai. ei-j ku,rioj VIhsou/j Cristo.j diV ou- ta. pa,nta kai. h`mei/j diV auvtou/Å (1 Cor 8:6)

Therefore, it is not clear on what basis we should say that 1 Cor 8:6 is an allusion to Deut 6:4, let alone an expansion of it. Were that the case one might expect formulation that follows the structure and rhythm of the Shema. Perhaps:

Hear, O Corinthians, the Lord our God and the Lord Jesus Christ are one.

Such a formulation would not only be an overt allusion to the Shema but would explicitly do what Bauckham and Wright propose, that is, bring God and Jesus together into a single entity. Even without the “hear”, which is surely the most important word to include when referring to the Shema, one could still create a more overt allusion to the Shema than the supposed allusion in 1 Cor 8:6. For example:

To us there is the Lord our God and the Lord Jesus Christ and they are one.

Or even:

The Lord our God is one, Father and Son they are one.

In summary, for a meaningful allusion to the Shema one would expect at least some of the following components:

• The invitation to the nation/church to pay heed (e.g. “Hear, O Israel”)
• The possessive pronoun with relation to God (“our God”)
• The repetition of “Lord”
• The identity clause (e.g. “is one”, or perhaps, “are one”)

In contrast, we find none of those things:

• No “hear” or similar verb; no reference to the nation/church; no similar introduction to the formula.
• No possessive pronouns; instead of being “our God”, he is God “to us”.[9]
• No repetition of “Lord”; God is not addressed as Lord at all.
• No identity clause; one is used to number God and Jesus separately, not together.

Were Paul trying to refer to the Shema then he has done so in disregard of every reasonable expectation we might have about what a textual allusion should be. There is no quibble that Paul is referring to the idea of Jewish monotheism, but it takes particularly inventive exegesis to see a textual allusion to the Shema in this verse.

Further Problems

If Paul had only said “there is one God and there is one Lord Jesus Christ”, this would not be an allusion to the Shema but at least contains some of the right words and would not deviate from the original formulation. But, of course, Paul does not just say this. He says a lot more and this is another indication that he does not specifically have the Shema in mind.

First, he identifies God as “the Father”. This is an important marker for Christian identity because of Jesus’ teaching about the filial relationship that believers have with God. The one that Christians know as “Father” is their only God. This has nothing to do with the Shema but everything to do with anchoring Christian monotheism to the personal relationship Christians have with their God.

Secondly, Paul introduces his formulation “to us”, contrasting with the others of which he has been speaking. Arguably, Paul may be consciously updating Jewish monotheism with a familial aspect, yet in context Paul is not juxtaposing Christianity and Judaism but Christianity and those who say there are many gods and many lords, that is, pagans. Therefore, in context the Shema is of little relevance because the question at hand is not the expansion of Jewish monotheism but the contrast with polytheism. In one sense, Paul may be seen as juxtaposing the Christian and Jewish identity by the addition of a second clause. Affirming one God was trivial for Jews, it was axiomatic, but to add a second identifier, that Christians also recognise Jesus would have been distinctive.

Thirdly, Paul adds clauses about the relationship of God and Jesus to “all things” and to believers. Whether or not the clauses are intended to refer to the old or new creation, they are clearly unrelated to the Shema but also unprompted by Paul’s present purpose of contrasting Christian monotheism and polytheism. The fact that Paul includes these clauses is another indication that he does not specifically have the Shema in mind.

So, not only does Paul not do what we might expect if he were referring to the Shema, he does things we would not expect if he were referring to the Shema. It is difficult, therefore, to see one what basis we can conclude 1 Cor 8:6 is an allusion or expansion of the Shema.

Identity

The reason Bauckham and Wright see 1 Cor 8:6 as an expansion of the Shema is because the Shema is the most fundamental statement of Jewish monotheism. If Paul has consciously expanded this statement to include Jesus then, they argue, Paul has included Jesus within the divine identity making Jesus God. The obvious problem (that is, obvious to me at least) is that by using a conjunction (“and”) Paul separates the two persons rather than identifies them. Bauckham and Wright attempt to circumvent this problem by supposing that Paul is applying the divine identity equally to both God and Jesus. If Paul is quoting or alluding to the text of the Shema then κύριος here should mean YHWH, but they ascribe to Jesus the name of God and thus include Jesus within the unique divine identity. There seem a number of problems with this view:

First, Paul does not say “there is one Lord:  Jesus”; he says “there is one Lord Jesus Christ”. “Lord” here cannot be separated from “Jesus Christ”. Paul uses the phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” on 49 other occasions, demonstrating that in his routine usage “Lord” is the title he confers on Jesus and not a proper name. The “Lord” is an important title and elevates Jesus above ordinary men but not to equality with God. J. A. Ziesler writes “it could mean divinity in a somewhat reduced sense, and would not necessarily say anything unique or even highly unusual about Jesus”.[10] Therefore, to translate kyrios as YHWH is unwarranted.

Secondly, if Paul is alluding directly to the Shema then he has divided the Shema, applying elohim and YHWH to separate persons. In doing so, Paul would be destroying the Shema, directly undermining its purpose in affirming the unity of YHWH, as though elohim was someone different from YHWH. Worse, it would deprive the Creator and the Father of the divine name, a name that was sacred for Second Temple Judaism. Rather than expanding the divine identity, Paul would be destroying it.

Thirdly, it is worth remembering that in context Paul is contrasting the “one Lord Jesus” with the “many lords” of others. Therefore, Paul is not using “Lord” as the divine name but as a title for persons of special reverence. By not describing God as Lord, he is not denying God his due reverence. The “lords” are not “gods” (else he would not use both words) but are some other order of person. To describe the Father as “lord” in this context would imply that he was not a God and that is not something Paul would do. However, the term is perfectly apt for Jesus, who for Paul is not God but is someone worthy of reverence. As J. D. G. Dunn says “it becomes plain that kyrios is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, but if anything more a way of distinguishing Jesus from God”.[11]

Concluding Remarks

I do not think that 1 Cor 8:6 can be understood as an expansion of the Shema. It does not contain enough of the Shema to be a textual allusion and says too much else for us to suppose that Paul has the Shema specifically in mind. In any case, were 1 Cor 8:6 an allusion to the Shema then it would produce the perverse outcome of applying the divine name to Jesus but denying it to God.

In closing it is worth drawing attention to the strange exegetical “achievement” of Bauckham and Wright: to see Paul as identifying Jesus as God without using an identity statement. If Paul meant God and Jesus are one, or the Father and Jesus are the same God, or anything of that nature, he could have used the words to do it, but all would involve an identity statement. Yet this is the one thing Paul does not do. If he meant to include Jesus within the divine identity,[12] then he chose an obtuse method of doing so. Therefore, I think we must prefer the alternative, that Paul understands God and Jesus to be separate.