1 Cor 8:6: Monotheistic Christology

Introduction

Erik Waaler notes “It has been argued that 1 Cor 8:1-6 is the earliest NT text testifying to the pre-existence of Christ and His participation in the act of creation.”[1] C. Fletcher-Louis says that 1 Cor 8:6 is a “key text for the emerging consensus” of Christological Monotheism and that it “places Jesus squarely within the identity of the one God of Israel.”[2] N. T. Wright says that it has an “apparently extraordinary ‘high’ christology” and it is a “Christian redefinition of the Jewish confession of faith, the Shema”.[3] This remark shows that Wright (and it is true of others[4]) is conducting his analysis within the socio-historic context of Jewish Monotheism in the Second Temple period. He (and it is true of others) is not considering the text just within the context of inspired Scripture, i.e. what text means within the context supplied by the Spirit alone. This narrower and different context of appraisal generates the questions: does the Spirit present Deut 6:4 as a ‘Jewish’ confession of faith or rather a proclamation of divine revelation? Would the Spirit ‘redefine’ its own presentation in Deut 6:4? Was it a definition only for its time? These are unfashionable questions, but is as well to advertise them here even though we do not deploy an ‘evangelical’ argument against Christological Monotheism.

Waaler reviews the history of scholarship[5] and it is worth noting that there has been a shift in the last century from seeing 1 Cor 8:6 against a Hellenistic backdrop to one that is primarily Jewish. Both exercises are a matter of bringing parallels to bear on the NT text, and the resulting proposals are beyond our scope for discussion. The intertextuality of the NT with the OT is so vast and any intertextuality with contemporary Jewish and non-Jewish literature so tiny that the method of bringing extra-Biblical parallels to bear must take second place.

The flow of ethical argument in this part of the Corinthians’ letter is also not essential for a discussion of how Christological Monotheism reads 1 Cor 8:6. The situation in Corinth and the teaching about knowledge which Paul was opposing is addressed by a statement with two main clauses:[6] one that is monotheistic and one that is about the Lord Jesus Christ. To say that there are two clauses, only one of which is monotheistic, is to take the opposite position to Christological Monotheism, and it doesn’t depend on any particular view about the situation in Corinth regarding food offered to idols. This is our ‘critical’ argument against Christological Monotheism. Hence, we are characterizing the position of this paper as ‘monotheistic Christology’.

The nature of the exegesis offered by Christological Monotheism on 1 Cor 8:6 is largely declarative. For example, Wright says that for Paul “the allegiance of local paganism to this or that ‘god’ and ‘lord’ must be met with nothing short of the Christian version of Jewish-style, Shema-style, monotheism.”[7] Bauckham’s declaration is, “Paul has taken over all of the words of this Greek version of the Shema‘, but rearranged them in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.”[8] The question to challenge Wright and Bauckham with is to ask whether this is actually what Paul is doing with the two clauses: are both clauses jointly expressing monotheism? Has Paul taken over all the words of the Hebrew version of the Shema in his Greek,[9] in particular has he taken over ‘Yhwh’? This is the crux of the argument and to determine this question, logico-linguistic analysis of the text is required.

We will also need to examine Paul’s use of other OT texts with ‘Yhwh’, as this is important for deciding whether Paul has taken over ‘Yhwh’ from the Shema in 1 Cor 8:6. Here the work of D. B. Capes is often cited.[10] Hence, we will jump from our exegesis/analysis of 1 Cor 8:6 into these texts in order to appraise the question of how many ‘Yhwh’ texts used by Paul refer to Christ. We shall find that an analysis of such texts (which includes 1 Cor 8:6), when informed by logico-linguistics, yields a much smaller list than that proposed by scholars such as Capes, who carry out more theologically driven exegesis. Accordingly, such a list does not offer much support for the view that ‘Yhwh’ has been quoted from Deut 6:4 in 1 Cor 8:6.

Finally, we will examine what Paul means by saying ‘all things’ are from the Father and through the Son. Commentators take two approaches to these two ideas: cosmological and soteriological. It is either all things of the created order or all things in the new creation that are from the Father and through the Son. Which is correct?[11]

This then is the scope of this paper: we are not discussing the flow of Paul’s argument about food offered to idols; the cultural situation in Corinth; the general Hellenistic and/or Jewish background of monotheistic belief;[12] how and when Paul uses either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures;[13] or sundry literary matters to do with composition or style. Our focus is just on the textual relationship of 1 Cor 8:6 to the Shema.

Analysis

The text is fairly straightforward and we have translated the prepositions with the most likely meanings,

But to us there is one God, the Father, out of whom are all things, and we to/for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through/by whom are all things, and we through/by him. 1 Cor 8:6 (KJV revised)

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

This statement is compared to the Shema,

Hear, O Israel: Yhwh our God, Yhwh is one. Deut 6:4 (KJV revised[14])

dxa hwhy wnyhla hwhy larfy [mv

a;koue Israhl ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n ku,rioj ei-j evstin

and the proposal is made that, “Any Greek-speaking Jew who hears a Christian say what 1 Cor 8:6 says is bound to hear those words as a claim that Yhwh is now somehow identified with Jesus Christ.”[15] Such a proposition, without evidence in Second Temple writings from Greek-speaking Jews, is of little value as it stands. Commenting on Paul’s use of Deut 6:4, Wright says: “What Paul seems to have done is as follows. He has expanded the formula, in a way quite unprecedented in any other texts known to us, so as to include a gloss on qeo,j and another on ku,rioj…”[16] Wright notes that there is a paucity of Second Temple evidence for this proposal because there are no other texts known to us like 1 Cor 8:6.[17]

A more plausible proposal would be that a Greek-speaking Jew would see an allusion in Paul’s words to the Shema in, for example, ‘God’, ‘us/our’ and ‘one’,[18] but it is not obvious that Yhwh is to be identified with Jesus Christ.[19] Rather, the descriptive aspect of ‘our God’ and ‘one’ is picked up by ‘to us…one God’, which therefore in turn identifies ‘the Father’ as Yhwh rather than Jesus Christ. Further, the counting aspect of Paul’s conjoined statements, ‘one…and one’, rather militates against the interpretation that Christ is being placed within the identity of the one God of Israel. The Shema has a single occurrence of ‘one’ whereas 1 Cor 8:6 has two occurrences. Finally, if we accept Wright’s claim, we still have to do the work of saying what we mean by ‘included within the identity of the one God of Israel’ – this could be explained as simply as the indwelling of God’s Spirit rather than anything more complicated, say, such as a recognition of an incarnation.[20]

Wright asserts that Paul has taken ku,rioj from Deut 6:4, but offers no argumentation for this proposal. He then concludes, “There can be no mistake: just as in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1, Paul has placed Jesus within an explicit statement, drawn from the Old Testament’s quarry of emphatically monotheistic texts…producing what we can only call a sort of christological monotheism.”[21] We have criticized Wright’s exegesis of Colossians 1 and Philippians 2 in previous articles, but only Philippians 2 uses a characteristic monotheistic OT text (Isa 45:23). We might agree that Phil 2:10 places Jesus within the same eschatological situation as Yahweh in Isa 45:23, but placement within a situation is not the same as inclusion within the divine identity and so Wright’s comparison is false.

The case for the christological monotheist is based around the claim that kyrios is picking up ‘Yhwh’ from Deut 6:4 and using this name for Christ, thus identifying Jesus with Yhwh in some sense. The first counter-argument to this claim is that, even if Paul is picking up ‘Yhwh’ from Deuteronomy, bearing the name ‘Yhwh’ doesn’t imply an identification of Jesus with Yhwh. This is shown in two ways: first, the name that is above every name was given[22] to Christ by God (Phil 2:9); and secondly, the name was also given to the Angel of the Lord who led Israel through the wilderness (“My name is in him”, Exod 23:21).

The Angel of the Lord is a type of Christ leading his people through the wilderness. In the same way that he bore the name, so too Christ bears the name. Hence, any basis there might be in the possession of this name for identifying Jesus with Yhwh would also apply to the Angel of the Lord.[23] Yet the Angel of the Lord is distinguished from Yhwh in the same way that Paul distinguishes ‘one…and one’ in 1 Cor 8:6.

However, before we reach this conclusion, we should ask, as a second counter-argument, whether kyrios in 1 Cor 8:6 is actually picking up ‘Yhwh’ from Deut 6:4 in the first place. ‘Yhwh’ is a proper name, but kyrios in 1 Cor 8:6 is not being used here as a proxy[24] for this proper name precisely because it is modified by ‘one’.[25] The ‘one’ is in a semantic contract with the ‘many’ of v. 5, which in turn has the plural of kyrios. This in turn brings that plural into a semantic contract with the singular of v. 6. Thus, because the plural is functioning as a descriptive title, so too kyrios in v. 6 is functioning as a title and not as a proxy for the name ‘Yhwh’. Accordingly, we can observe a symmetry between the two clauses: just as ‘God’ is not a proper name in ‘one God’ so too ‘Lord’ is not serving as a proxy for a proper name in ‘one Lord’.

In a contiguous reproduction of a Yhwh text, kyrios without an article is a fairly clear proxy replacement for the name and it carries some functionality of that name. In freer quotations and allusions of/to Yhwh texts, kyrios may be used with an article as an exegetical replacement for ‘Yhwh’, but where the reference is to Christ, the use of the article makes it unlikely that kyrios is being used as a proxy for the name ‘Yhwh’, and this is because kyrios is being modified by the article.[26]

Given that kyrios is generally used to describe or address lords, masters, owners, deities, rulers, persons of rank, as well as the God of Israel, we need to know which use of kyrios we have in 1 Cor 8:6. If kyrios is being used descriptively of Jesus Christ, then it is not representing the name ‘Yhwh’. Indeed, we might well argue that since ‘Jesus’ means ‘Yah saves’ or ‘Yah is salvation’, it is the name ‘Jesus’ which picks up ‘Yhwh’ from Deut 6:4, but this is obviously just a general pick-up of ‘Yhwh’ common to many Hebraic names.

If the first clause, ‘there is one God, the Father’, is monotheistic, what type of clause is ‘there is one Lord, Jesus Christ’?[27] Is it possible to have a god and a lord within a scriptural faith? Is this conjoining of the Father and the Son so innovative that it redefines Scriptural Monotheism and Jewish Monotheism? Is the associative partnership implicit in ‘of whom are all things’ (the Father) and ‘by whom are all things’ (the Son) actually (or still) monotheistic?[28]

Our two clause reading of 1 Cor 8:6 is immune to Bauckham’s reasoning for Christological Monotheism. He says, “there can be no doubt that the addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema‘ would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter…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‘.”[29] All we have to observe here is that the second clause is not ‘adding to’ the ‘one’ of the monotheism in the first clause and that ‘one…and one’ does add up to two! We do not have to maintain Paul’s monotheism by deploying a late-20c. theological construct like ‘included in the divine identity’. We can maintain his monotheism by confining his avowal of monotheism to the first clause.

The questions we pose go to the heart of the matter and their answer is that a son of God is precisely the person who can be in partnership with God the Father without any confusion of persons or change to monotheism; this is not a High Christology but a High Anthropology.

The Shema

J. W. Adey comments,

“The ‘one God’ of Biblical revelation is a single ‘person’ God, the Father only, unambiguously unitarian or monotheistic…”.[30]

The Shema would seem to be a clear expression of that monotheism. The singleness of God is not about his (compound) unity, but about there being a sole God.

Christological Monotheism holds that Jesus is included within the divine identity of the God of Israel. As a second move it affirms a continual adherence on the part of Paul to Jewish Monotheism. The two propositions introduce a confusion into the definition of monotheism between what is one and unity. Jewish (as well as scriptural) Monotheism is not about unity; it is about there being a single God. The compound unity of the Father and the Son is not informative for Paul’s use of the Shema.

This observation introduces a requirement for Christological Monotheism: it needs to show that ‘inclusion within the divine identity’ is actually relevant to a characterization of ‘monotheism’. The contrary challenge is that we can characterize Jewish Monotheism, Scriptural Monotheism and Pauline Monotheism, referring to the singleness of God, as well as showing that Jesus is included within the divine identity of the God of Israel – but without this being a matter of monotheism and instead being a matter of cosmology.[31] The drive to have ‘inclusive identity’ part of a definition of monotheism seems anachronistic and based in the needs of Christian theology rather than an accurate description of NT history.

If we want to be faithful to the etymology ‘mono/theism’ (mo,noj/ qeo,j), then we should include the following Pauline ‘mono’ texts ‘only God’ (1 Tim 1:17; cf. Jude v. 25) and ‘only Sovereign…who only has immortality’ (1 Tim 6:15-16). These texts, coupled with the distinction between the Son and the invisible God in Colossians, gives us a consistent monotheistic pattern in Paul’s thought that doesn’t include the Son.

Is Paul (or the Spirit) rewriting or rearranging the Shema? If the ‘one’ and ‘God’ of the Shema is used in the first clause in ‘one God’ and the sense of ‘to us’ is reproduced in the ‘our’ of the first clause, then the Shema is partly quoted. ‘Yhwh’ is absent but we have ‘the Father’ in an analogous position in the first clause to give us the reference of that name.

If the ‘one’ of the Shema has been used in the first clause, can we say that it is also used in the second clause and for a different person? The point here is that the referent of ‘Yhwh’ has been brought into the first clause under the reference of ‘the Father’. The available sense of ‘one’ in the Shema as it is related to Yahweh has therefore been used up in the first clause. The alternative analysis therefore is that we have a corresponding use of ‘one’ in the second clause, a use that is modelled on the first clause (and the two clauses do have a similar structure).[32]

A correct analysis of the first clause disallows the possibility of kyrios being used from the Shema in the second clause. The argument is that the semantic resources of the Shema are used up in the first clause. This argument supplements the earlier argument above that kyrios is not functioning as a proxy for the name ‘Yhwh’ in the second clause.[33]

We should ask whether it is possible for the Shema to be rewritten or rearranged so as to include Jesus Christ within the divine identity of the God of Israel. The question here is whether the semantics of ‘one’ (dxa, ´eHäd) in the Shema allow this possibility. Our argument is that they do not, because ‘one’ is about singleness and not unity whereas ‘inclusion within the divine identity’ is about unity, i.e. requires a sense corresponding to ‘unity’ in the Shema.[34]

A quotation of the Shema in Zech 14:9 assists this analysis.

And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be Yahweh one, and his name one. Zech 14:9 (KJV revised)

Adey comments on this text, “the way ´HD qualifies Yahweh and ‘Yahweh’ in Zech 14:9, classifying but not (it is said) identifying, connects and complies syntactically and semantically with reading ´HD as a numeral ‘one’ in the Shema.”[35] And a further quotation,

Have we not all one father? Hath not one God (´ēl) created us?  (Mal 2:10 KJV)

Adey’s comment on this text is, “The singularity of ‘God’ is further emphasized by the grammatically singular form ´ēl”.[36] The singleness of Yahweh is also seen in the complementary statements that God is alone God or that Yahweh is alone Yahweh (2 Kgs 19:15, 19; Neh 9:6; Ps 83:18).

Where ´eHäd might be used for ‘oneness’ or ‘unity’, then there is a two that remains two, as for example in the case of “the two shall be one flesh” (Gen 2:24).  Adey observes,

“…whilst ‘one’ in the appropriate context may be transposed into a metaphoric sense as ‘unity’ (‘oneness’), dismantling ‘one’ as ‘unity’ does not end up with ‘one’ (thing). ‘Unity’ requires at least two (parts or persons) for its meaning. In Deut 6:4 the only theistic party is Yahweh. The text has none other that is God but He, and this justifies asserting that the given four semantic units in the Shema statement are insufficient to provide for or even evoke the concept of (some plural oneness as) unity.[37]

In summary: Christological Monotheism needs to argue that the Shema can be rewritten and that its singleness in respect of Yahweh can be divided. It also has to show that ‘Yhwh’ is actually being picked up in the second clause of 1 Cor 8:6; it needs to argue the case that the semantic properties of kyrios in Corinthians are consistent with such a pick-up. Bauckham and Wright certainly make the exegetical claim that Paul is re-writing the Shema, but have they been misled by the ‘surface grammar’ of the appearance of kyrios in the NT and the OG to think there has been a pick-up of ‘Yhwh’?

Yhwh-Kyrios Identity

‘Yhwh’ is represented by ‘kyrios’ in Pauline NT texts that quote the OT. This is not controversial.[38] To give one example,

Blessed is the man to whom kyrios will not impute sin. Rom 4:8 (KJV revised)

Blessed is the man unto whom Yhwh imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. Ps 32:2 (KJV revised)

The question is whether there are quotations of texts that have ‘Yhwh’, but which are used of Christ. The argument put by Christological Monotheism is that there are such texts and they are an “emerging pattern”.[39] This pattern is used to support the interpretation that Paul included Jesus Christ within the identity of the God of Israel (in 1 Cor 8:6). Dunn asks,

“Should we therefore conclude that in making such use of such scriptures Paul was equating or even identifying Jesus with God, with the one God of Jewish monotheism? Such a development would seem to go well beyond anything within the current diversity of first-century Judaism and constitute such a radical revision of the dogma of monotheism as to make a parting of the ways inevitable and in fact already irretrievable.”[40]

Dunn’s doubt is well-placed. The first problem facing commenters is that many of the NT texts proposed[41] can be read solely with reference to Yahweh. The second problem is how to derive an ‘inclusive’ identity characterization from texts that use ‘Yhwh’ of Christ.  Examples of these texts are worth discussing in order to tease out what conditions must be satisfied in order for Paul to be making some sort of ‘including identification’ between the God of Israel and Christ.

There are two common logical notions of identity to distinguish from inclusive identity.[42] An absolute identity such as ‘a=b’ gives no priority to either ‘a’ or ‘b’ and offers no basis for saying that ‘a is included within the identity of b’ instead of ‘b is included within the identity of a’. Indeed, ‘within’ is problematic since ‘a=b’ translates as the proposition “ ‘a’ is included in an identity with ‘b’ ” which is a comment about a statement. How we explain the cognitive difference between ‘a=b’ and ‘a=a’ is not important for our purposes.[43] What absolute identity requires is that if two are identical, then whatever is true of one is true of the other.[44] Given the different things Paul says about God and Jesus, it seems clear he did not presuppose or make an absolute identification between the two; rather the opposite – 1 Cor 8:6 is not, formally, an identity statement.

If we consider relative identity (‘a is the same F as b’),[45] it doesn’t seem that this framework will give us an understanding for inclusive identity. Logically, two are one (the same) relative to their satisfying a categorical predicate (‘the same F’; Fido and Pooch are the same breed’). Does Paul think that Jesus is the same God as Yahweh? One doubt would be that he distinguishes them in terms of ‘God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’. However, putting this doubt aside, if Paul believed that they were the same God, this doesn’t necessarily imply that he is ‘including’ Jesus in the divine identity of Yahweh/God of Israel.

There are problems with thinking of ‘inclusive’ identity as a relative identity. Exponents of Christological Monotheism don’t use the technical vocabulary of relative identity. Furthermore, relative identity (or qualitative identity) maintains that a and b are at least numerically unique.[46] Again, as with the notion of absolute identity, to say that Jesus and the God of Israel are the same God doesn’t give any priority to either in terms of inclusion.

If we think of shared identity or group identity, these are examples of ‘inclusive’ identity. We might say ‘a is a member of the same class as b’. There are many gods and many lords and these would be classes in which we might place the God of Israel and the Lord Jesus Christ. Putting it in this way, doesn’t obviously include Jesus in the class of many gods, but rather the class of many lords. In fact, 1 Cor 8:6 doesn’t lend itself to an inclusivity thesis, since Paul would seem to affirm that the “to-us” class of gods has only one member and likewise the “to-us” class of lords.[47] He assigns deity to the Father and lordship to Jesus.

It is one thing to claim that Paul includes Jesus within the divine identity of the God of Israel; it is another thing to show this worked out in his writing. We have noted the declarative quality of Christological Monotheism. For example, we might ask whether (for Paul) it was God the Father[48] that included Jesus within his identity. If this were the case, and suppose that he did so through the bestowal of his Spirit upon Jesus, does this have any implication as regards intrinsic deity in respect of Jesus? If Jesus is included within the divine identity of the God of Israel, is the identity nevertheless still retained by the God of Israel as his identity in such an inclusion?

In a rough and ready way we might say, “A criterion of identity for something is that criterion by means of which we can individuate something, specify which one it is, tell where it begins and another leaves off; in short, by means of which we can pick something out or tell that it is the same one again.”[49] In the writings of Paul, the use of ‘the Father’ in constant conjunction with ‘God’ serves as one criterion for individuating God, of which there is only one (‘To us there is one God, the Father’). Any inclusion of Jesus within this identity doesn’t change that criterion of identity which is not satisfied by Jesus (he is the Son). Paul doesn’t give us any language to change the criterion.

Representative Identity

The best sense for ‘included within the divine identity’ is representative identity – i.e. where someone represents (acts for) someone else.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is kyrios, to the glory of God the Father. Phil 2:9-11 (KJV revised); cf. Rom 14:11

The name given to Jesus that is above every name is not the common Jewish name of ‘Jesus’ but that of ‘Yhwh’. As we have noted above, the type for this is the giving of the name to the Angel of the Lord. This framework of name-bearing is indicative of representation (acting/speaking[50] in someone’s name). This is clear from the example of the Angel of the Lord where God instructs that the people were to obey his voice because “my name is in/with him” (Exod 23:21). The identity here is representative, one in which someone represents the authority and the will of another. As such, it does not confuse the persons of God and the Angel of the Lord. We can, if we want, gloss this kind of identity as an ‘inclusive’ identity: the representative is part of the identity of the one represented.

Paul quotes Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9-11 which, while ‘anthropomorphic’, is quite specific in its personal language: ‘my mouth’ and ‘unto me’ – this singular language doesn’t seem to offer much room for others to receive obeisance.

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me (yl yk) every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isa 45:23 KJV)

Commentators assume that bowing ‘at the name of Jesus’ is equivalent to bowing before Jesus alone. It is as if their exegesis drops ‘the name’ from their consideration of what Paul is saying. However, if you bow ‘at the name’ and that name is ‘Yhwh’, then Yahweh is involved as an indirect recipient of the obeisance when the one being bowed to is a representative.[51]

The bowing goes hand in hand with the confession that Jesus Christ is kyrios. Is this a confession that Christ is ‘Yhwh’, a bearer of the divine name; is it a confession that Jesus is Yahweh; or is it a confession that he is the believers’ lord?

Christ is not only given a name; he is highly exalted, an elevation which is all about ‘lordship’ (quoting Isa 52:13-15 – a position of authority over kings). Exegetically, kyrios (‘Jesus Christ is Lord’[52]) could be a proxy for ‘Yhwh’; however, since kyrios is not being quoted from a Yhwh text, we have no prompt for this reading. The sense of kyrios, which we noted above, includes ideas of lordship and being a master or ruler, and this fits with the obeisance in the act of bowing. Is it likely that Paul is saying that confession to God’s glory is a matter of acknowledging Jesus bears the divine name or that he is the believer’s lord? To state the question is to answer it.

How do we account for the use of Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9-11? The simplest and most Jewish explanation is that the identity implied by name-bearing is representative. Jesus represents Yahweh (as a name-bearer of ‘Yhwh’), so that bowing to him is bowing to Yahweh. Hence, bowing and confessing is to/for[53] the glory of God the Father and not the glory of Jesus. Rather than placing Christ on an equal footing,[54] first his exaltation, and then the believer’s glorifying of God through him, define his position as subordinate.

The situation in which someone represents the identity of another person is a common occurrence in diplomatic contexts, in government, and in legal settings.[55] The example of Isa 45:23 and Phil 2:9-11/Rom 14:11 suggests that Jesus Christ is a plenipotentiary representing Yahweh (cf. Joseph and Pharaoh).[56]

It should be noted that the use of Isa 45:23 in Rom 14:11 is more formal than that in Phil 2:9-11,

For it is written, “As I live, says kyrios, to me every knee shall bow and every tongue confess to God.”

The differences here with Isa 45:23 are the change from ‘By myself have I sworn’ to ‘As I live’ and the addition of ‘says kyrios’. The lack of the article, and the conventional formula ‘thus says the Lord (God)’ in the Prophets,[57] particularly Ezekiel, suggests that kyrios in Rom 14:11 is standing proxy for ‘Yhwh’ and refers to Yahweh. This is clear from the fact that what is said was said back then and Christ is not a figure back then – just Yahweh.

Romans 14:11 is about what was written; it is not about something being said contemporaneously. We might ask why Paul dropped ‘By myself have I sworn’ and used ‘As I live’. To this we can say, first, the ‘As I live’ Yhwh texts are pronouncements and commands, but mostly judgments. This accounts for Paul’s composite quotation: he is relating the pronouncement of Isa 45:23 to the judgment seat of Christ; secondly, the first person of ‘By myself have I sworn’ is kept in ‘As I live’; and thirdly, ‘As I live’ evidently has the same force as the speech act of swearing reported in Isaiah.[58]

Isaiah 45:23 is quoted in Romans in support of the proposition that all must appear before the judgment seat of God; hence, all confess to God. However, because the judgment seat of God is the judgment seat of Christ, all will bow the knee to God by bowing the knee to Christ. In Isaiah’s day, the expectation was that the people would bow the knee to the Arm of the Lord.[59]

In general, insofar as Christ does the same thing his Father does, the same action predicates are applied to them both. For example,

To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. 1 Thess 3:13 (KJV)

…and kyrios my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Zech 14:5 (KJV)

This allusion seems clear. Zechariah is typical language for God-manifestation acting on behalf of his people (‘come’). The context is the Last Days and the Day of the Lord (Zech 14:1, 3, 4). Yahweh goes forth into battle and ‘his feet’ shall stand on the Mount of Olives.

This allusion is an example of Yhwh texts that describe God acting on behalf of his people in the land. The language of Yahweh coming in the person of another is seen, for example, in the case of the Arm of the Lord (Isa 40:3; 10; 51:9; 53:1; John 12:38). This is God being manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16) and fulfilling his own declaration, ‘I will be who I will be’ (Exod 3:14[60]). That God is manifest in someone on the ground is indicated by the prediction that ‘his feet’ would stand on the Mount of Olives. As Adey observes, “A Biblical criterion of being the true God is that God’s identity can be depicted by another”.[61]

The predicates of action are equally applicable to Yahweh as they are to the person on the ground.[62] There are criteria of application[63] for these predicates which are satisfied by Yahweh and the person on the ground. The point here is not that the person bears the name ‘Yhwh’, nor that they necessarily represent Yahweh (pace foreign potentates brought against Israel), though this may be true: the point is that God is manifesting himself in someone through the Spirit – their actions are the actions of God. In this sense, that person is included in an identity with God (and vice-versa) but without any confusion of persons.

Fletcher-Louis states, “Time and again we find divine action or functions ascribed to Christ in a way that now makes sense if Christ belongs within the divine identity and if he fully participates in the divine nature.”[64] What we need to question here is the ‘fully participates in the divine nature’. This sounds like theologically motivated eisegesis designed to support later church doctrine.

The framework for understanding the same divine action being attributed to God and to Christ is representative. This is clear from the use of ‘parentheses’ in Paul,

Now God himself and our Father, (even our Lord Jesus Christ), direct our way unto you. 1 Thess 3:11 (KJV revised); cf. 2 Thess 3:5

The singular verb ‘to direct’ is attached to the subject ‘God’ as shown by the emphasis ‘himself’, but the guidance is through the Lord Jesus, as shown by the ‘even’ sense of the conjunction. Paul uses the same construction for emphasis in 1 Thess 5:23, “May the God of peace himself (auvto.j de. o` qeo.j) sanctify you wholly”, and 1 Cor 8:6 makes the relationship clear: spiritual things are of the Father but through the Son (see below).[65]

The singular verb attaches to the emphasized subject, God the Father, but the parenthesis provides a substitution for the reader, a device which therefore does not contravene the normal grammar of noun-verb agreement.[66] Fletcher-Louis’ grammatical analysis is therefore wrong “two persons grammatically expressed as one acting subject”.[67] It is rather, two grammatical subjects (one primary, one secondary) available for one action verb.

Typological Identity

It might be argued that we should eschew metaphysical questions on how Paul included Jesus within the divine identity of the God of Israel, and assert instead that this is a literary idea. The problem with this proposal is that language use is referential and the difficult metaphysical questions cannot be avoided.

There are however literary identities. One kind is a typological identity.

Nevertheless, when it [the heart, v. 16] shall turn to kyrios, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17 (KJV revised)

And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them…And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face…But when Moses went in before Yhwh to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out. Exod 34:30-34 (KJV revised)

The comparison here is with Moses ‘going in’ before Yhwh without a veil. The use of the verb ‘to turn’ picks up the children of Israel ‘outside’ who ‘turned away’ from Moses (Exod 34:31 – they turn back, same verb in the LXX). Paul is saying that when the heart of the Jews turns to Yhwh, the veil will be taken away, i.e. they will then be like Moses.[68]

Paul’s first exegetical comment upon the incident is that ‘The Lord is the Spirit’. The identity here is typological; Yahweh in Moses’ day stands for ‘the Spirit’ in Paul’s day.[69] That Paul is thinking in terms of typological comparison is shown by his earlier remarks. The Corinthians were not a letter written in ‘tablets’ of stone but one that was written in the ‘tablets’ of the heart with the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor 3:3). In order for the Jews to be such a letter, they would have to ‘turn’ to the Spirit. Paul is stating this imperative by his assertion that ‘the Lord’ (Yahweh) is ‘the Spirit’.[70]

Paul’s second exegetical comment is ‘where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty’. This is about the ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:8) and it echoes Jesus’ words, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me…to proclaim liberty to captives” (Luke 4:18; Isa 61:1). The ministry of the Spirit was through Paul to those who would respond (2 Cor 3:1). Jesus spoke of liberty as a release from captivity (Assyrian deportation), a metaphor for forgiveness of sins. Paul varies this in terms of a freedom from bondage (Egypt; cf. Gal 2:4; 5:1). This second comment reinforces the implication of the first comment – that kyrios is going proxy for ‘Yhwh’ in v. 16 and refers to Yahweh. This is because, for Jesus, the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord.

The above two comments are bound by the connection between Moses and the Spirit of the Lord in Isaiah 63. The use of ‘Spirit of the Lord’ alludes to the judges who (like Moses) delivered the people (e.g. Jud 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6). The Spirit of the Lord in Moses caused the people to rest, and it was in this way that Yahweh led the people (Isa 63:14). This rest was the Promised Land to which they had been led (Ps 95:11).

The last comment made by Paul is that believers behold ‘the glory of the Lord’ and are ‘changed into the same image from glory to glory’ (v. 18). The glory of Yahweh is Christ, a point made clear in John (John 13:32; 17:1, 5) as well as Paul (2 Cor 8:19, 23). This ‘glory’ is therefore also an ‘image’ to which believers are conformed (Rom 8:29). This last comment further shows that kyrios in v. 16 is referring to Yahweh.[71]

Capes says that “the most convincing evidence that ku,rioj in [2 Cor] 3:16 refers to Jesus comes from [2 Cor] 4:5”,[72]

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. 2 Cor 4:5 (KJV revised)

This illustrates the problem confronting exegetes; ku,rioj is used to refer to Yahweh and Jesus Christ and commentators can get confused over usage. Paul’s point here in v. 5 is about the content of preaching, whereas in the previous chapter, his concern has been with understanding the driving force of preaching – the Spirit. Paul’s teaching about the Spirit takes the form of a typological comparison with Yahweh. Capes is therefore simply mistaken. With typological identity, the type may have the same role, status or function as the anti-type. In the comparison between Yahweh and the Spirit, both are the source of instruction.

Mistaken Identity

The problem facing exegetes is when to know that kyrios is being used to refer to Christ and when to Yahweh. Examples of commentators mistaking identity include the following:

(i) The use of Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth, ‘Lord Jesus’, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Whosoever shall call upon the name kyrios shall be saved. Rom 10:9-13 (KJV revised)

On the basis of the mention of the Lord Jesus in v. 9, it is assumed that ‘same lord over all’ and ‘call upon the name kyrios’ equally refer to Jesus.  Hence, Capes avers, “Since ku,rioj refers to Jesus in 10:9, he probably had Jesus in mind here also.”[73]

An allusion or echo of Joel 2:32 exists in, “with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor 1:2). This places Jesus into the position of the saviour that Yahweh occupies in the ‘calling’ of Joel 2:32. It could be used to support the claim of Capes about Rom 10:13 but, equally, we should observe that the name ‘Yhwh’ is not referenced in 1 Cor 1:2. Since salvation is a matter of God working through Jesus, the appeal for salvation can be described directly in terms of Joel 2:32 and Yahweh or in allusive terms referring to Christ.

The expression ‘lord of all’ evokes God’s rule over the nations (Jew and Greek). In 1 Chron 29:11-12, Yahweh is ‘head above all’ (LXX has, differently, ‘lord of all’) and ‘riches’ are also said to come from him in this text. These two points of contact suggest that Paul is quoting from this prayer, but it is also common enough to address Yahweh in these terms (e.g. 2 Chron 20:6).

This in turn suggests that the use of Joel 2:32 is also a reference to Yahweh – ‘calling upon the name of the Lord’. This is a specific refrain[74] in the Jewish Scriptures for invoking God to act as a saviour, see the table below for examples.

Ps 79:6	Wrath will be poured out on those who do not call on God’s name.
Ps 80:18	Time of destruction; the people will call on the name of the Lord and be saved.
Isa 64:7	Time of wrath, but no one was calling upon the name of the Lord.
Jer 10:25	Fury to be poured out on those who do not call upon the name of the Lord.
Zeph 3:9	Time of indignation and judgement; the way of service is to call upon the name of the Lord.
Zech 13:9	Time of war and destruction; a third brought through fire, calling upon the name of the Lord.

This pattern[75] fits with Paul’s use of Joel 2:32, which in Joel’s day was likewise a time of war and the need for salvation: with the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem and time of trouble, Paul preached that men and women had to believe with their heart and confess with their mouth and call upon the name of the Lord in order to be saved. Hence, we find the expression also being used in Peter’s Pentecost address, again quoting Joel (Acts 2:21), offering salvation from the great and notable Day of the Lord. More generally, as the disciples and apostles preached a message of salvation, the expression is used to describe the response of (some) people to this message (Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Tim 2:22). ‘Calling upon the name of the Lord’ is an expression for invoking God to act as a saviour; it is not an expression denoting everyday personal or cultic prayer.[76]

(ii) Another example of commentators mistaking identity is the quotation of Jer 9:23-24 in 1 Cor 1:31,

That, according as it is written, ‘He that glorieth, let him glory in kyrios’. 1 Cor 1:31 (KJV); cf. 2 Cor 10:17

Thus saith Yhwh, ‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am Yhwh which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight’, saith Yhwh Jer 9:23-24 (KJV revised)

The principal actor in Paul’s treatise in 1 Cor 1:19-31 is God: God destroys (v. 19); he brings to nothing (v. 19); he has made (v. 20); he saves (v. 21); he chooses (vv. 27-28); and he makes (v. 30). Christ is the ‘object’ in the discourse – the ‘Wisdom of God’. It follows that v. 31 is a simple use of kyrios for ‘Yhwh’ and that the believer is to boast in God’s acts. Accordingly, Capes is simply wrong to conclude, “As indicated by his description of Christ’s work in 1:30, Paul quoted this Yahweh text (ku,rioj in LXX, hwhy in the Hebrew text) and applied it to Christ.”[77] On the contrary, in v. 30 Christ is God’s work! The boasting is related to the acts of God.

This is clear from Paul’s other use of Jer 9:23-24 in 2 Cor 10:17. In this part of his letter, he is concerned with the work of preaching, a work he attributes to God by saying, “But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you” (2 Cor 10:13 NASB). This is the context for his quotation, “But he who boasts, let him boast in kyrios” (2 Cor 10:17 NASB revised).

The mistake commentators make[78] is to disregard v. 13 and look at v. 18 which says, “For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends” (2 Cor 10:18 NASB). They assume that ‘the Lord’ is a reference to Christ as the one who commended Paul. However, in vv. 12-13, Paul contrasts those who commend themselves with God who ‘apportioned’ a ministry to Paul. It follows then that ‘the Lord’ is a reference to God and not Christ.

(iii) Another example of commentators mistaking identity is,

For who has known the mind of kyrios, that he may instruct him? But (de.) we have the mind[79] of Christ. 1 Cor 2:16 (KJV revised)

This is a quotation of Isa 40:13,

Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? Isa 40:13 (KJV)

Within Isa 40:12-13, the variation of ‘mind’ for ‘Spirit’ by Paul makes sense, since the argument in Isaiah is all about counsel and the thinking that is being offered about policy and direction in the affairs of state (Isa 5:19; 8:10; 14:26; 16:3; 19:11; 29:15; 30:1; 36:5). Those who have the Spirit of the Lord have the counsel of Yahweh to offer the king. The argument in Paul is equally about the possession of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:4-15). The rhetorical question that Paul uses from Isaiah invites the answer – no one instructs the Spirit of the Lord in his prophets. This answer applies to those who have the mind of Christ through the Spirit – no one can instruct them.

The adversative (de.)  is used by Paul to equate the situation in Isaiah’s day, where the prophets had the Spirit of the Lord, with believers in his day who had the Spirit – but as the mind of Christ. He makes the equation by re-using ‘mind of’ but with ‘Christ’ and not kyrios. Accordingly, kyrios in his citation does refer to Yahweh precisely because believers have the mind of Christ.[80] This use of Isa 40:13, keeping the reference of kyrios as Yahweh, is the same as in Rom 11:34.

(iv) In his consideration of food offered unto idols, Paul quotes Ps 24:1, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof” (1 Cor 10:26). The argument for reading kyrios here as a reference to Christ is nothing more than the use of kyrios in the context for Christ. Thus, we have ‘cup of the Lord’, ‘table of the Lord’ (v. 21), and ‘provoke the Lord’ (v. 22). Capes claims that “the most significant evidence that in this Yahweh text ku,rioj refers to Christ regards the structure of Paul’s argument on eating idol meat”[81] and he cites 1 Cor 8:6 on ‘one Lord’.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t respect the difference between a quotation of a scriptural text with ‘Yhwh’ and the non-quoting use of kyrios for Christ that we have in the immediate context of vv. 21-22. Given that kyrios can be used to refer to the God of Israel and Jesus, we need a theological reason for Paul to be using kyrios for ‘Yhwh’ referring to Christ in his use of the Psalm.

Appealing to the Lord as the possessor of the earth is an argument rooted in the Jewish Scriptures (e.g. Ps 89:11) and it is an obvious argument to make in support of the view that food bought in the market, even if previously offered to idols, is acceptable. This argument from Scripture is not made in support of Paul’s earlier point about fellowshipping the table of demons in which he uses kyrios for Christ. This supports the interpretation that kyrios in his quotation refers to Yahweh as the provider of all food.

The quotation is used to bolster a point about eating food, idols and conscience. If we look at Capes’ “most significant evidence”, we find that this cluster of points is related to ‘God’ and not ‘the Lord’.

• An idol is nothing in the world, for there is only one God (1 Cor 8:4).
• There is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6).
• Food does not commend us to God (1 Cor 8:8)

1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ with its prepositional statements. If we compare these to 1 Cor 10:26, they disambiguate Paul’s quotation: the earth is ‘of the Lord’ (tou/ kuri,ou) and it is God the Father ‘from whom’ or ‘out of whom’ are all things (evx ou-).

(v) The use of the Jewish Scriptures may be more a matter of influence, an echo and an allusion, rather than citation or quotation This makes the use of kyrios for ‘Yhwh’ more difficult to determine. The following text looks to be dependent in some way on Mal 1:7, 12 and Deut 32:21,

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? 1 Cor 10:21-22 (KJV)

Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, ‘Wherein have we polluted thee?’ In that ye say, ‘The table of Yhwh is contemptible.’ …But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, ‘The table of Yhwh is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible’. Mal 1:7, 12 (KJV revised)

They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. Deut 32:21 (KJV)

The Corinthians were provoking the Lord to jealousy (i.e. Christ, vv. 16, 22), but there is no quotation of a ‘Yhwh’ text in the allusion to Deut 32:21. Bauckham states,

“But since ‘the cup of the Lord’ and ‘the table of the Lord’ in the preceding verse must refer to Christ, this must be one of those quite frequent occasions on which Paul interprets the kurios of an Old Testament YHWH text as Jesus. The implication for Jewish monotheism and Christology is remarkable: the exclusive devotion that YHWH’s jealousy requires of his people is required of Christians by Jesus Christ. Effectively he assumes the unique identity of YHWH.”[82]

The use of ‘table of the Lord’ alludes to Mal 1:7, but there it is the altar, the table of Yhwh. The question is whether this is a use of kyrios for ‘Yhwh’ bringing ‘Yhwh’ into the Corinthians’ text by proxy. The alternative suggestion is that ‘table of the Lord’ varies the Malachi text with a use of kyrios with the Christian sense of ‘lord’ determining a reference to Christ; this would give a uniformity of use of kyrios across vv. 21-22 – ‘cup of the Lord’ and ‘table of the Lord’.

The expression ‘the table of the Lord’ is a metonymy for the Lord’s Supper – believers partook of the Supper and this is expressed as partaking of the table of the Lord. In Malachi, ‘table of the Lord’ is not a metonymy but refers literally to the altar-table upon which the bread was placed. The defiled bread that was placed upon the altar-table defiled that table. This difference between the reference of a metonymy and a literal reference in the two uses of the expression means that kyrios in Corinthians is not functioning as a proxy for ‘Yhwh’: the Lord’s Supper is not ‘the Supper of Yahweh’. The principle that this example illustrates is that in a use of a ‘Yhwh’ text for Christ, with kyrios going proxy for ‘Yhwh’, there should be correspondence in the kind of use.

The same analytical choice confronts us with the allusion inherent in ‘provoke the Lord’. Is this bringing ‘Yhwh’ from the Deuteronomy context into the Corinthians text by proxy or is it varying that text with a use of kyrios for Christ. This would continue the use of kyrios across vv. 21-22. In effect, then, v. 16 with its ‘cup of blessing…fellowship of the blood of Christ’ is setting the reference of kyrios in ‘the cup of the Lord’ to be Christ, and then the following ‘table of the Lord’ and ‘provoke the Lord’ continues this usage.

This is the simpler interpretation and the alternative would need a theological reason as to why Paul might want to use kyrios for ‘Yhwh’ of Christ at this point in his discourse (i.e. bring ‘Yhwh’ under proxy into his allusion); it is not enough to assert that this is what he has done.[83] The problem for this claim is that an allusive use of language is not a citation or quotation in which kyrios stands proxy for ‘Yhwh’ in a contiguous and more formal reproduction of a Jewish scriptural text. What we simply have, contra Bauckham, is the jealousy of Christ; there is no reason for Paul to draw in the name ‘Yhwh’ under proxy.

A principle of exclusive devotion is illustrated in the example of Yahweh’s jealousy over Israel’s sacrificing to that which was not God. It’s an obvious example from the Law to teach an exclusive devotion to Christ in respect of table fellowship. Does such exclusive devotion imply or presuppose that Jesus is included in the divine identity of Yhwh?  It’s rather odd to read such a heavy piece of theology into the simple use of an example. Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, after all, still used the temple as well as breaking bread in houses. Does exclusive devotion to Yahweh in certain practices and exclusive devotion to Christ in other practices require a particular theological harmonization such as ‘included in the divine identity’? It is doubtful.

(vi) A second example of an allusion to a Yhwh text is,

That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that kyrios is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 1 Thess 4:6 (KJV revised)

O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongs; O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shew thyself. Ps 94:1 (KJV revised); cf. Deut 32:35

The allusion here is clear and, equally, it is clear that kyrios is not referring to Christ but to God. The absence of the article is one indicator, but the context also shows that it is God’s will that Paul is presenting (vv. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9). The commandments of the Lord Jesus are mentioned (v. 2) but the use of kyrios there is distinguished by the article. What we have here is a corresponding kind of usage of kyrios in the allusion and no reason to see a change of reference.

All Things and Wisdom

The most common interpretation of ‘all things’ in 1 Cor 8:6 is that this embraces the Genesis creation and that the Son is being placed as the one through whom that creation came into being – “through/by whom are all things”.

But to us there is one God, the Father, out of whom are[84] all things, and we to/for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through/by whom are all things, and we through/by him. 1 Cor 8:6 (KJV revised)[85]

J. Murphy-O’Conner discusses cosmological readings of 1 Cor 8:6, showing how they are often based on extra-Biblical comparisons with parallel texts that have ‘all things’ being of one God but through an agent such as Wisdom or the Logos. He notes example philosophical texts from the Stoics and Philo, but several Second Temple religious texts can be adduced for Wisdom having a role in creation. One argument for a cosmological reading is that all things come from God, and so food comes from God, and is acceptable. The problem with the argument is that vv. 1-7 is directed to those who already have this knowledge; it is not directed to those who need persuasion.[86] Another argument is a comparison with 1 Cor 11:12 where Paul states “but all things are of God”. However, it is not certain that Paul is making a point here about creation; he could be making a contrast with the new creation as with 2 Cor 5:18 (“But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ”). If we exclude creation as the topic of v. 6, then the parallel between Christ and Wisdom vis-à-vis creative agency is diminished.[87]

The competing interpretation is soteriological. Within 1 Corinthians, Paul uses ‘all things’ to embrace different concepts. First, he says that the spiritual man judges all things (1 Cor 2:10-16). Such a person is the recipient of the Spirit from God who works ‘all things in all’ (1 Cor 12:6; Eph 1:23) – all these things are distributed throughout the body in terms of the spiritual gifts (‘spiritual things’, 1 Cor 12:1ff). All things are for the believers so that the abundance of grace might be spread to all (Rom 8:28, 31-32; 2 Cor 4:14-15). This is why all things are ‘new’ in the new creation (2 Cor 5:17-18). Secondly, and politically, the day will come when God will put all things under the feet of Christ, and after fulfilling his work, Christ will deliver all things to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph 1:10-11). Of these two uses of ‘all things’, 1 Cor 8:6 would fall into the first category of ‘spiritual things’ because Paul is talking about knowledge in 1 Corinthians 8.[88] Christians judge, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

The underlying point here is that ‘all things’ is a common enough way to talk generally. Elsewhere, Paul will refer to thrones, rulers, lordships and authorities as ‘all things’ (Col 1:16); he will comment that he has suffered the loss of all things (Phil 3:8); and in his Mars Hill speech, Paul declares that God gives all things to all. The ‘all things’ of 1 Cor 8:6 are the gifts of the Spirit which are ‘of’ the Father but ‘through’ Jesus Christ (e.g. Eph 2:18; Tit 3:5-6).

There is a further point of contrast with the cosmological reading. Paul states that believers are ‘through/by’ Jesus Christ – this is a reference to the new creation of men and women in Christ (Rom 6:11, 23; 2 Cor 5:17; Col 1:20; Gal 3:14; 6:15), who in turn receive the spiritual gifts. Paul’s point is based in the present and not the past of the Genesis creation.

Murphy-O’Conner argues for a soteriological reading close to our position, but he has still not let go entirely of the cosmological reading. He says,

Creation is evoked, not in or for itself, but because of the inconceivable power therein displayed. Believers are to understand that power of some magnitude is at work in their lives.[89]

There is no need for a reference to creation. The context and the intertextual links surrounding ‘all things’ shows a present-tense soteriological sense related to the spirit gifts.[90]

Nevertheless, even if we exclude creation as the reference of ‘all things’ in 1 Cor 8:6 (the cosmological reading),[91]  a parallel with Wisdom can still be upheld insofar as Wisdom is the source of knowledge. Paul’s argument is centred on knowledge and various behaviours arising from what is known, and so a correlation between Wisdom and the Spirit is valid.

Wright makes a comparison with the personified and pre-existent Wisdom of God,[92] but Paul doesn’t use sofi,a at this point in his letter. He does compare Christ to the wisdom of God earlier (1 Cor 1:24), but he isn’t thinking of Christ as the personified Wisdom of God at that point in his letter. A comparison with the wisdom of God fits the context of 1 Corinthians 8 because Paul is concerned with gifts and knowledge, but this concern shows that he is not thinking of Christ as the pre-existent and personified Wisdom of God because the gifts (‘all things’) were of the present. Wright’s pre-existent reading requires ‘all things’ to be the ‘all things’ of creation.[93] Dunn is closer to the truth of the matter when he says,

“Christ is being identified here not with a pre-existent being but with the creative power and action of God.”[94]

Conclusion

In view of the above discussion, is 1 Cor 8:6 evidence that Paul thought of Jesus as having a divine nature and/or identity? Bearing the divine name is not sufficient to give us a divine nature, but it does mean God includes his Son within his identity through the bestowal of his Spirit. This exegesis does not confuse the persons of the Father and the Son. Furthermore, we don’t have to attribute to Paul the re-writing of the Shema, something unconscionable for a Jew, let alone the inspiration of the Spirit in Paul.