Representative Quote from Ulfilas:
“Paul makes a distinction between God and Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6. This shows that Jesus is not included in the one God of the Shema but is instead a subordinate figure, similar to how Old Testament figures like David are called ‘lord.’ This proves that Paul did not consider Jesus to be divine in the same sense as the Father.”
—Ulfilas, Arian

---

TheSire:

“He is in the new perspectivist camp and I find it funny that if this is truly a reshaping of the Shema, surely someone would have found out about it before the 20th-21st century.”

This line of reasoning is historically unfounded and doesn’t engage with the text itself. Many theological doctrines, such as justification or Trinitarian theology, weren’t fully articulated or systematized until much later in Church history, even though the foundations were present in the biblical text. Early Church Fathers often didn’t have the necessary background in Old Testament or Ancient Near Eastern studies, and it wasn’t until scholars like Dunn that deeper connections between Pauline theology and Jewish monotheism were examined in depth. The timing of the discovery doesn’t negate its validity if there’s strong textual support. Just because an idea wasn’t fully explicated earlier doesn’t mean it isn’t rooted in the original context.

“One clear one would be [Jeremiah 30:9], now compare this with the Shema which simply says ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'”

This comparison between Jeremiah 30:9 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 is strained and ignores the clear distinction between the two contexts. Jeremiah 30:9 speaks of the future restoration of Israel and the reestablishment of Davidic kingship, but this is not a discussion of monotheism. In contrast, the Shema (Deut. 6:4) is a direct assertion of God’s uniqueness and sovereignty, fitting perfectly with Paul’s theological point in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Circular Reasoning:

Your argument that 1 Corinthians 8:6 parallels Jeremiah 30:9 relies on circular reasoning. You assume that Jesus is merely a man, then look for passages like Jeremiah 30:9 where David, a human king, is called “lord.” You then conclude that since David is a human “lord,” Paul must be using “Lord” in the same way for Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6. However, this reasoning begs the question because it assumes the very point in dispute—that Jesus is not divine. Instead of deriving your conclusion from the text, you interpret the text through your presupposition that Jesus is a mere human, not considering that Paul’s language and context suggest otherwise.

Paul is drawing on Jewish monotheism here, specifically the Shema, which was the foundational Jewish confession of God’s oneness. This is evident as Paul frequently references the Shema or similar Jewish monotheistic statements elsewhere (Gal. 3:20, Rom. 3:30, 1 Tim. 2:5, Eph. 4:6). Furthermore, Paul’s choice of language in 1 Corinthians 8:6—“one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ”—shows that he is affirming monotheism while also identifying Jesus with divine lordship, a clear elevation of Jesus into the divine identity.

The Unitarian reading you propose, which claims that Paul is distinguishing between God and Lord to assert two different categories, does not hold up under scrutiny. The contrast here isn’t between God and a subordinate figure, but rather between the true God and false gods. The statement “there is but one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ” redefines the Shema to include Jesus within the oneness of God, presenting a theological reality in which both the Father and Jesus share in divine identity. This reading aligns with Paul’s overall theology in letters like Philippians 2:6-11, where Jesus is exalted to the highest place and given the name above all names, showing that He shares in the divine name and authority.

“Also, understand that this isn’t a unique sentence and there are many verses in the OT that match it further.”

While there are indeed Old Testament passages that refer to a king or servant ruling under God (e.g., Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23-24, Ezekiel 37:23-24, Hosea 3:4-5), none of these passages are directly relevant to 1 Corinthians 8:6. These Old Testament passages discuss the relationship between God and His servant or shepherd, often referring to Davidic kingship in the context of Israel’s restoration, but they do not address the specific theological framework of Jewish monotheism and the inclusion of Jesus in divine lordship.

In fact, the Shema (Deut. 6:4) is the most fitting context for understanding 1 Corinthians 8:6, as Paul uses the monotheistic creed to emphasize that Jesus shares in the unique divine lordship of Yahweh. Your attempt to draw parallels between 1 Corinthians 8:6 and passages like Jeremiah 30:9 is unconvincing because these passages are about restoration and kingship, not monotheism. Moreover, as noted by Garland:

“Rehearsing this basic confession is intended to call to mind the command ‘You shall have no other gods before me’ (Deut. 5:7). It fits the basic Jewish assertion that ‘the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords’ (Deut. 10:17).”
—Garland, David E., 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Kindle Locations 8447-8457.

Similarly, Leon Morris comments on the significance of the title “Lord” being applied to Jesus:

Leon Morris: “‘Lord’ was a common way of referring to deity in the cults of the time (which makes Paul’s frequent application of the term to Jesus Christ significant). Paul is simply making it clear that the heathen world worshipped a multitude of deities, none of which was real.”
—Morris, L. (1985). 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 7, p. 125).

This further supports the notion that Paul is including Jesus within the divine identity, using a term (“Lord”) that was widely recognized as referring to deity, thereby highlighting the exclusivity of Christ’s lordship in contrast to the many false gods and lords worshipped in paganism.

---

Expanding on Jesus as Creator:
The language of agency—where Jesus is described as the one “through whom all things came and through whom we live”—places Jesus in a divine role, not merely as an intermediary like Moses or David. Paul’s description parallels statements in other New Testament passages, such as Hebrews 1:2-3 and Colossians 1:16-17, where Jesus is explicitly identified as the one through whom all things were created. This language cannot be reconciled with a purely human figure; it ascribes to Jesus divine authority and participation in creation, a role traditionally reserved for God alone.

Nature of Worship:
Paul’s inclusion of Jesus as the one “through whom we live” implies devotion and worship directed toward Him, which is problematic for a Unitarian framework. Jesus Himself affirms in Matthew 4:10, “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.” The worship of a created being would be idolatry, yet Paul directs this worship toward Jesus, aligning Him with the divine identity. If Jesus were a mere creature, this would violate the strict monotheism Paul is affirming.

Acts 2:36 Objection:
Acts 2:36, which states that God made Jesus “both Lord and Christ,” refers to Jesus’ exaltation after His resurrection. This doesn’t imply that Jesus was a mere human being elevated to divine status but rather that His pre-existent divine status was recognized and affirmed through His resurrection. Philippians 2:9-11 clarifies that Jesus, though already divine, was given the name above all names because of His obedience and death. This exaltation is an acknowledgment of His authority, not a change in His nature.

Refuting the “Two Powers in Heaven” Argument:
Some may argue that Paul’s identification of Jesus as Lord reflects the “two powers in heaven” concept found in certain strands of Second Temple Judaism, where a figure could act as an intermediary. However, this concept was ultimately condemned as heretical by mainstream Jewish thought, and Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 8:6 goes far beyond an intermediary role. By associating Jesus directly with creation, Paul affirms that Jesus is not merely a second power but shares in the divine identity as Creator.

The Unitarian’s Appeal to James D. G. Dunn:

The Unitarian has now moved on to James D. G. Dunn to try to undermine the idea that the Shema is the background for 1 Corinthians 8:6. Here is what they quote:

“However, the point is not quite as clear cut as Bauckham suggests. For the question arises as to whether Paul did indeed intend to ‘split the Shema’. It is quite possible to argue, alternatively, that Paul took up the Shema, already quoted in 8.4 (‘there is no God but one’), only in the first clause of 8.6 (reworded as ‘for us there is one God, the Father’); and to that added the further confession, ‘and one Lord Jesus Christ.’ Bauckham argues that ‘the addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema’ would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. But if anything, the fuller confession of 8.6 could be said to be a more natural outworking of the primary conviction that ‘the Lord (God) had said to the Lord (Christ), “Sit at my right hand … “‘ (Ps. 110.1), a confession set precisely in contrast to the gods many and lords many of Graeco-Roman worship.”
—Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? by James D. G. Dunn (Page 109)

This interpretation from Dunn connects Christ to Philo’s Logos and the Wisdom tradition, aiming to reinterpret the passage through this lens. But, rather than portraying Christ as merely human, Dunn portrays Him as the divine instrument of creation—a being through whom God works both in the old and new creation.

Addressing Dunn’s Claim: Similarities and Differences in Texts

While Dunn suggests a link to Psalm 110:1 (“The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool’”), a closer look shows that 1 Corinthians 8:6 lacks any reference to the Father saying to the Son, sitting at His right hand, or making enemies a footstool. These two texts—Psalm 110 and 1 Corinthians 8:6—do not share the kind of linguistic or theological parallels Dunn relies on.

Additionally, Dunn’s appeal to Philo’s Logos tradition and wisdom literature (Sophia) creates further complications. While it’s true that these traditions exist in the background of early Jewish and Christian thought, they do not fit neatly with the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6. This is simply Dunn’s interpretive grid applied to the text, but as we will see, it has critical weaknesses.

Clarifying Paul’s Understanding of “One Lord” in Light of Jewish Monotheism

It’s crucial to understand that Paul, as a devout Jew, is reinterpreting the Shema—a foundational text of Jewish monotheism. By assigning the title “one Lord” to Jesus, Paul isn’t merely echoing Greek philosophical concepts like Philo’s Logos but is redefining the boundaries of Jewish monotheism to include Jesus within the divine identity. This is a radical move, unprecedented in Jewish theology, where the oneness of God is tightly held. As Richard Bauckham points out, “the uniqueness of God can be found in his unique role of creator and ruler of all. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus is identified as both the creator and ruler of all, which places Him squarely within the divine identity.” This reinforces the idea that Paul’s understanding of “Lord” in this passage is not merely functional or representational but ontological.

Why Dunn’s Appeal Backfires: The Divinity of Christ and His Role in Creation

Dunn’s attempt to place Jesus within the Wisdom tradition does not help the Unitarian position but rather backfires. The Logos and Wisdom traditions don’t depict Jesus as a mere human but as a divine agent in creation. By linking Christ to the creative power of God, Dunn implicitly affirms that Christ plays a role no mere human could—a role in creation itself. If Jesus is truly the one through whom all things were made (as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 8:6), He cannot be reduced to a human Messiah.

Moreover, as Dunn attempts to read the passage through Philo’s Logos framework, he introduces several philosophical assumptions that do not align with Paul’s theology. For instance, Philo’s Logos fits within a Platonic metaphysical system that is distinct from Paul’s Jewish monotheistic background. As Dr. Gordon Fee points out:

“Philo’s concerns and language differ from Paul’s… Although there are conceptual similarities, in fact, the combination of prepositions found here (and Rom 11:36; Col 1:16-17) is apparently unique to Paul in antiquity.”
—Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Page 92)

Paul’s use of prepositions like “from,” “through,” and “for” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not directly parallel to Philo’s language or the Logos tradition. This suggests that, while Philo and the Wisdom tradition provide some background, Paul is doing something unique in his Christology—something that diverges from both the Platonic metaphysics and Stoic cosmology that informed Philo’s thought.

Dunn’s Misreading of “Splitting the Shema”

Dunn’s argument also misrepresents what scholars like Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado mean by “splitting the Shema.” Hurtado clarifies that:

“As to 1 Cor 8:4-6, I can’t recall saying that Paul ‘split the Shema’. Paul does appear to use the terminology of the Shema in acclaiming ‘one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ,’ and in substance does exhibit the ‘dyadic’ ‘mutation’ in Jewish confession and devotion that I’ve written about for 30 yrs. However you slice it, and whatever you do with it subsequently, there is this novel ‘two-ishness’ to earliest Christian belief and devotional practice.”

Paul’s inclusion of Jesus alongside the Father as the one Lord is unprecedented within Jewish monotheism. While Paul is not literally “splitting” the Shema, he is reinterpreting it in light of Christ’s lordship—an action that fundamentally redefines the traditional Jewish confession of faith to include Jesus within the divine identity.

Wisdom Christology: A Forced Lens?

The appeal to Wisdom Christology is often constructed by forcing texts through a lens that doesn’t naturally fit. While wisdom is sometimes personified in Old Testament literature (e.g., Proverbs 8), the New Testament writers go further by attributing divine roles to Jesus, not just personifying Him as a wisdom figure. As one scholar notes:

“Wisdom is conceived as the means of creation whereas Christ is a unique personal creator. Wisdom is the personification of a divine action or attribute while Christ is conceived as a divine unique person.”
—Richard Bauckham

By placing Christ within the Wisdom tradition, Dunn’s interpretation still implies that Christ is more than a mere human. Even if Christ represents God’s wisdom in the world, His role in creation and salvation points to His divinity, a fact that undermines the Unitarian interpretation.

Addressing Possible Unitarian Rebuttals Regarding “Lord”

Some Unitarians may argue that the title “Lord” (κύριος) need not imply divinity, as it can be used for human figures in a position of authority, such as kings or masters. However, this argument falls short in the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6, where “Lord” is used not simply to describe Jesus’ authority but to identify His role in creation itself. The Greek term “δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα” (“through whom all things were made”) firmly places Jesus as the divine agent of creation, a role reserved for God alone in Jewish theology. In light of this, “Lord” clearly goes beyond a human title and identifies Jesus as sharing in the divine sovereignty over all creation.

Conclusion: Christ’s Lordship and Creation

Ultimately, Dunn’s appeal to Philo and the Wisdom tradition fails to make the case that Jesus is a merely human figure. While Dunn’s interpretation offers an interesting view on the relationship between Christ and divine wisdom, it backfires on the Unitarian position. If Jesus is the divine agent of creation (as Dunn acknowledges), then He cannot be reduced to a human figure. Additionally, as noted by scholars like Gordon Fee and Larry Hurtado, the language Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is unique, and his reworking of the Shema affirms Jesus’ full divinity.

Thus, Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 remains an affirmation of both the Father and the Son as sharing in the unique divine identity, with Jesus as the one Lord through whom all things were made.