Writing on Paul’s use of the Old Testament in Phil 2:5-11, Blake Ostler wrote the following which soundly refutes any attempt to salvage Bauckham's thesis of "divine identity":
It is extremely significant that Paul interpreted what appears to be the most intensely “monotheistic” text in the Old Testament to refer to two divine beings, God and the Lord. In Romans 10:9, Paul also interprets Isaiah 45:23 as a reference to two figures: “for if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The confession is that Christ is Lord, but he is raised from the dead by another, God. This confession that Jesus is Lord, as in Philippians 2:10-11, appears to be dependent on Isaiah 45:23. The Septuagint (LXX) of Isaiah 45:23 reads: “By myself I swear,/righteousness shall go out of my mouth,/ my words will not be frustrated,/that to me every knee shall bow/ and every tongue confess to God.” The speaker is Yahweh (Isa. 45:18), but he speaks of God (Elohim) in the third person. When Paul quotes this same text in Romans 14:11, he exploits the distinction between the first-person speech of the Lord with that addressed to God in the third person: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (emphasis mine). Paul sees in this text two divine subjects, which he emphasizes by adding the explanatory gloss “says the Lord,” to specify it is the Lord who is speaking that that there is another God, to whom the confession is made. This text is used, like Psalm 110 and Daniel 7, because it permits a reading that refers to two divine figures.
We thus see a pattern emerging in early Christian exegesis. Texts which refer to the Lord and permit a reading that distinguishes the Lord from God are adopted to explain the relationship between the one God, the Father, and the Lord, the Son. Similarly, it appears that the notion there are two divine beings lies behind Paul’s midrashic interpretation of Isaiah 45:18-25 in Philippians. Isaiah 45:25 LXX can also be read as referring to two divine figures. The Hebrew text of Isaiah 45:25 contains both the name of God, Yahweh, which is always replaced by “Lord” when it is read out loud, and a word for God, Elohim. However, the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 45:25 also can be read to refer to two divine figures, the Lord and God. Jesus is equated with the reference to “Lord” as in the reading of Psalm 110, and the reference to God is read as a reference to God the Father: “They shall be justified by the Lord (κυριου = Yahweh), and in God (τω θεω = Elohim) all the seed of the sons of Israel will be glorified.” It is significant that, while Paul substitutes “Jesus” for “Lord” in his genuine letters more than fifty times, he never replaces “Jesus Christ” or “Lord” where “God” (Elohim, El, or ho theos) appears in the underlying Hebrew or Septuagint texts. Paul sees “Elohim” as a reference to the one God, but references to “the Lord” or “Yahweh” can refer to Jesus Christ. The reason for such a distinction is fairly evident. The name of “the Lord” is given to Christ. However, the name Elohim is not connoted in the title “Lord” that is given to Christ by the Father.
In any event, kingship monotheism is maintained because the honor that is given to Christ by bowing the knee to him and confessing that he is lord ultimately redounds “to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:11). Just as recognizing the agent or mediator of a benefactor also constitutes recognition and honor given to the benefactor, so bowing the knee to confess Christ ultimately honors the Father. The distinction between the Father and Jesus Christ is maintained clearly because Christ as a mortal is exalted by the power of God the Father. The Father “gives” the divine name that properly belongs to the Father to Christ. Christ becomes the servant who obeys the Father by undergoing death. Further, any confession that Jesus is Lord is ultimately to the honor of the Father. Any notion that Jesus Christ is somehow “included within the unique identity of the one God,” the Father, must overlook all of these essential distinctions and misses entirely the ways such honorific titles as “Lord” and the reception of the name function in a culture of honor and shame. Christ is the recipient of honor; the Father is the one who honors. The Father exalts; Christ is exalted. The Father gives; Christ receives. While the Father and the Son share the same name, glory, exaltation, and honor, Christ is not seen as identical with the one God, the Father. The identities of giver and receiver are clearly differentiated. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 140-42)