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 had 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 κυριος
here should mean YHWH, but they ascribe to Jesus the name of God and thus
include Jesus within the unique divine identity. There seems 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 about 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”. (J. A. Ziesler, Pauline
Christianity [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990] 37)
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” and with “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 as a way of identifying Jesus with God
if anything more a way of distinguishing Jesus from God”. (J. D. G. Dunn, The
Theology of the Apostle Paul [London: T&T Clark, 1998], 254) (Thomas Gaston,
“Some Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 8:6 and the Shema,” Christadelphian EJournal
of Biblical Interpretation [January 2016]: 73-74)
