yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8.6)
A little while ago I post a few thoughts on this passage, including the possibility that Paul is adding Jesus as a “second power” to the Shema, and not (as Bauckham would say) adding Jesus to the “divine identity”. I can’t say I know many scholars who have argued for the former (I believe James McGrath does though). Can anyone out there in the biblioblogging world point me in the direction of any literature that argues that this is what Paul was doing.
Pingback: Paul agreed with the Shema! « The Rosh Pina Project
Pingback: Elsewhere (06.09.2011) « Near Emmaus
I think McGrath has by far the stronger argument here.
Clearly Paul is differentiating Jesus from the father by both personhood and rank (although neither concept is addressed because a concept so outlandish and antethical to his own religion — Judiasm — never would have crossed his mind.)
If he had been a Trinitarian, he would have said, “… for us there is one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” And if that was what he meant, then he would have released a flood of protest and argument. But we see no such arguments because he wasn’t saying anything that any Jew in good standing would not have agreed with.
Pingback: Is the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8.6? « Near Emmaus
Paul calls Jesus the one Lord. God is Lord. Therefore Jesus is God.