In Ps 110:1, in Hebrew, the One and Only YHWH is contrasted with 'adôni (“my lord”). In the LXX translation, we find ho kyrios contrasted with ho kyrios mou. So this is perfectly in line with the usual LXX translation of YHWH with ho kyrios. The key word, for both versions, is: contrasted. However, and unlike Ps 110:1, Paul, in 1Cor 8:6, refers to Jesus as eis kyrios (“one lord”). Exactly as Deut 6:4 refers to the One and Only God, not only in the LXX translation (kyrios eis), but also in the original Hebrew (YHWH 'echad). Now, unless one is ready to resort to the desperate gambit of affirming that there is a (significant) difference between eis kyrios (1Cor 8:6) and kyrios eis (Deut 6:4 – LXX), the two expressions are essentially one and the same.
One may say that what is important about 1Cor 8:6 is the context of the whole chapter 1Cor 8, where Paul speaks to the Corinthians about the right attitude to take regarding the food sacrificed to idols. As is known, Paul had a rather "liberal" attitude about the issue, with the only limit that those who are "stronger" should not cause scandal to those who are "weaker" and have scruples.
But the text of 1Cor 8:6 cannot be treated lightly: Paul speaks as though the One God (eis theos, the Father) had entirely transferred the title and role of One Lord (eis kyrios, that is the same role that is esclusive to YHWH in Deut 6:4 – LXX) to His resurrected, ascended and glorified Son, Jesus Christ.
Certainly Paul caused scandal among the Jews, and in particular the Judaeo-Christians of Jerusalem, by not imposing the Mosaic Law on Gentile Christian converts. In fact, Paul's "liberal" attitude towards the Mosaic Law was so extensive, that he went as far as affirming that ...
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Instead, keeping God’s commandments is what counts. (1Cor 7:19)
But I suspect that Paul's affirmation that (the resurrected, ascended and exalted) Jesus Christ was (had become?) eis kyrios was considered by the orthodox Jews Paul’s peculiar heresy.
In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul intentionally reinterprets the Shema (Deut. 6:4) to include Jesus within the divine identity of YHWH. By calling Jesus εἷς κύριος (“one Lord”), Paul does not create a dichotomy between the Father and the Son but integrates Jesus into the monotheistic framework of Jewish theology. Paul does not transfer YHWH's role to Jesus but affirms the unity of the Father and the Son within the Godhead. The Father is the “one God” (εἷς θεός), and the Son is the “one Lord” (εἷς κύριος), together reflecting the oneness of God in the Shema.
ReplyDeleteThe Shema declares YHWH’s uniqueness: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (YHWH ’echad). In the LXX, this is rendered κύριος εἷς. Paul’s reformulation in 1 Cor. 8:6 emphasizes the same divine uniqueness but expands it Christologically: “For us, there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” This does not separate Jesus from YHWH but identifies Him as the Lord through whom YHWH created and sustains all things. In Jewish monotheism, the exclusive roles of creation and sustenance belong to YHWH alone (Isa. 44:24), thus identifying Jesus with YHWH.
The application of εἷς κύριος to Jesus reflects Paul’s belief in Jesus’ full participation in the divine identity. As Richard Bauckham argues, this inclusion redefines monotheism to encompass the Father and the Son without violating the oneness of God. The phrase εἷς κύριος directly connects to the exclusive worship of YHWH in the Shema, demonstrating that Paul saw no conflict in applying this divine title to Jesus.
The argument that the title and role of “One Lord” were “transferred” to Jesus misunderstands Paul’s theology. For Paul, Jesus is not a subordinate or a created being elevated to divine status. Instead, Jesus shares the same divine essence as the Father (cf. Phil. 2:6–11). The Father glorifies the Son (e.g., John 5:23, Phil. 2:9–11), but this glorification does not imply a change in Jesus’ divine nature. Rather, it publicly manifests His divine identity, which He has eternally possessed.
Paul’s Christology aligns with the broader NT witness, which consistently identifies Jesus with YHWH while maintaining the distinction of persons within the Godhead. For example:
• John 1:1: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
• Phil. 2:6: Jesus, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited.
• Rev. 5:13–14: Universal worship is directed to both the Lamb (Jesus) and the One seated on the throne (the Father).
Second Temple Judaism included concepts of divine agency, such as the Angel of the LORD, Wisdom, and the Word (Logos), which were understood as manifestations of YHWH. Paul’s Christology builds on this framework by identifying Jesus as the ultimate and definitive revelation of YHWH’s nature and will. While orthodox Jews rejected Paul’s claims about Jesus, this does not make his theology heretical. Instead, it reflects the radical redefinition of monotheism inaugurated by Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
ReplyDeleteIn 1 Cor. 8, Paul contrasts the "one God" and "one Lord" with the "many gods and lords" of paganism (1 Cor. 8:5–6). This distinction reinforces Jesus’ identity as the exclusive Lord alongside the Father in the context of Jewish monotheism. By identifying Jesus as the "one Lord," Paul challenges both pagan polytheism and any attempt to subordinate Jesus to a role less than divine.
The worship of Jesus as Lord was a foundational practice of the early Christian community, predating Paul’s writings. For example, early hymns such as Phil. 2:6–11 and confessions like Rom. 10:9 (“Jesus is Lord”) reflect the early church’s recognition of Jesus’ divine identity. Paul’s teaching on Jesus as εἷς κύριος is consistent with the broader apostolic tradition and the theological development of the early church.
Paul does not reject the Mosaic Law but reinterprets it in light of its fulfillment in Christ (Rom. 10:4, Gal. 3:24. Jesus’ identity as εἷς κύριος fulfills the Shema and establishes a new covenant relationship with God’s people, transcending the boundaries of the Mosaic Law. In 1 Cor. 7:19, Paul prioritizes “keeping God’s commandments” over circumcision, aligning with Jesus’ teaching that love of God and neighbor fulfills the law (Matthew 22:37–40). Paul’s Christological monotheism emphasizes allegiance to Jesus as Lord, not as a rejection of the Mosaic Law but as its fulfillment and culmination.
In conclusion, Paul’s identification of Jesus as εἷς κύριος in 1 Cor. 8:6 is not a heretical innovation but a profound reformulation of Jewish monotheism that integrates Jesus into the divine identity of YHWH. The title “One Lord” reflects Jesus’ full participation in the unique sovereignty of God, as demonstrated by His role in creation, redemption, and universal worship. Far from undermining monotheism, Paul’s Christology affirms the unity of the Father and the Son within the Godhead, consistent with the early Christian proclamation of Jesus as Lord.