Jimmy Dunn: one God, one Lord, and the Shema

Andrew Perriman | 3 Sep 2011
Read time: 3 minutes

During a lively dialogue with Larry Hurtado at the British New Testament Society conference this morning Jimmy Dunn put forward his well known view that there is a significant functional differentiation—even subordination—between Jesus and God in the New Testament that should not be obscured in our efforts to safeguard a high christology. He was responding to Hurtado’s basic argument that the worship of the earliest churches exhibited a dyadic pattern—that is, in their prayer, acclamation, confession, hymns, and such practices as the Lord’s meal and baptism, they effectively “worshipped” Jesus in the same terms as they worshipped God.

I think Dunn has the edge over Hurtado in this particular debate. The practical context of devotion certainly needs to be taken into account—calling on the name of the Lord was not a mere doctrinal formality (Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:2); it was a matter of urgent practice. But it seems to me that it is the apocalyptic narrative which principally defines the relationship between Jesus and God and the nature of the veneration of Jesus in the New Testament—in fact, I would say that the practice was essentially itself eschatological in character (note, in this case, the relevance of Joel 2:32).

Dunn was right, therefore, to emphasize such motifs as the vision of Jesus at the right hand of the Father, from which place he exercises authority and intercedes on behalf of the saints; and he is rightly concerned that much christological argument disregards the incarnational implications of the exaltation theme. There is much more to be said here, but I think Dunn was pushing matters in the right direction.

One particular comment stuck out. Dunn remarked that he used to favour the view that in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul incorporates Jesus as Lord into the shema, effectively identifying Jesus with God or making him equal to God.

…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)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deut. 6:4)

He has since changed his mind. He thinks now that while the first part of Paul’s statement is a reference to the shema and, therefore, a classic affirmation of Jewish monotheism, the second part—“for us there is… one Lord, Jesus Christ”—brings into focus Psalm 110:1:

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This seems to me very plausible. The consistent story elsewhere in Paul is that Jesus is given lordship—given the name kyrios—as a result of his faithful obedience in suffering, and that this status will have future consequences with regard to the nations and to the final enemy death (cf. Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Phil. 2:6-11).

So in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul is not saying that Jesus must be assimilated into an essential Jewish monotheism. Rather he is setting out the fundamental “Christian” response to the challenge of the dominant pagan culture: for us as heirs of Jewish monotheism there is one God, but this one God has given authority over the enemies of his people to the one who suffered, died and was raised from the dead. It is through him—not from him, as Dunn stressed—that these communities of new creation now exist. So I would say that the two part confession reflects the fact that this new creation has come into existence under conditions of eschatological conflict.

Not everyone in the room was convinced—Tom Wright certainly wasn’t—and it needs examining more closely. But it seems to me that Dunn’s argument, which I have not come across before, does justice to the narrative and apocalyptic structure of Paul’s eschatology.

fghjk5678 | Fri, 12/27/2024 - 21:22 | Permalink

While Psalm 110:1 is undoubtedly a key text for understanding Jesus’ exaltation and lordship, your assertion overlooks the clear linguistic and thematic parallel between the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and 1 Corinthians 8:6:

  • The Shema declares: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4 LXX).
  • Paul reformulates it: “For us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6).

Paul distributes the key terms of the Shema—“God” (Theos) and “Lord” (Kyrios)—between the Father and Jesus. This deliberate reformulation of the Shema integrates Jesus into the monotheistic identity of YHWH. The appeal to Psalm 110:1 does not exclude Jesus from the divine identity. Instead, Psalm 110:1 is frequently cited in the New Testament as evidence of Jesus’ exaltation to a divine role. Sitting at God’s right hand signifies sharing in God’s authority, not mere subordination. Paul’s statement in Philippians 2:9-11—that every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess Him as Lord—explicitly ties Jesus’ lordship to YHWH’s unique identity in Isaiah 45:23. Thus, Psalm 110:1 complements, rather than contradicts, the inclusion of Jesus in the Shema.

Paul’s distinction between the Father as “one God” and Jesus as “one Lord” does not imply subordination in nature but rather clarifies their distinct roles within the unified divine identity. The Father is the source (ex ou, “from whom are all things”), and the Son is the agent (di’ hou, “through whom are all things”). This reflects relational roles within the Godhead, consistent with Trinitarian theology. It does not diminish the Son’s divinity. In the LXX, the term Kyrios is consistently used to translate YHWH, the divine name. By applying Kyrios to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul identifies Jesus with the divine name of YHWH. This is evident in other Pauline texts where Jesus is the referent for Old Testament passages about YHWH (e.g., Romans 10:13 applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus). In the Old Testament, creation is uniquely attributed to YHWH (e.g., Isaiah 44:24, Psalm 33:6). By stating that “all things” exist through Jesus, Paul includes Him in this divine activity, affirming His divinity. If Jesus were merely a subordinate being, attributing creation to Him would be a violation of monotheism.

While Paul emphasizes the eschatological role of Jesus as Lord, this does not exclude Jesus from the divine identity. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul describes Jesus as the agent through whom “all things” exist. This echoes Colossians 1:16-17, which states that “all things were created through Him and for Him, and in Him all things hold together.” These are not temporary roles but eternal attributes of the divine identity.The claim that Jesus’ lordship is temporary misinterprets 1 Corinthians 15:28, which speaks of the Son being “subjected” to the Father so that “God may be all in all.” This does not mean Jesus ceases to be Lord or divine; rather, it reflects the relational dynamics within the Trinity. The Son’s subjection to the Father is consistent with His eternal role as the Son, not a denial of His divinity. In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul describes Jesus receiving universal worship “to the glory of God the Father.” This is a direct reference to Isaiah 45:23, where every knee bows to YHWH. Such worship would be idolatrous unless Jesus shares in the divine identity.

The interpretation here fails to account for the radical nature of Paul’s Christology. By applying the Shema to Jesus, Paul redefines Jewish monotheism to include Jesus within the divine identity. This is not a rejection of Jewish monotheism but an expansion of its understanding. Richard Bauckham demonstrates that Paul’s reformulation of the Shema integrates Jesus into YHWH’s unique identity as Creator and Lord. Paul’s repeated use of Old Testament YHWH texts for Jesus (e.g., Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:9-11, Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13) affirms this. In Second Temple Judaism, YHWH’s unique identity was defined by His roles as Creator and Sovereign. By attributing creation and universal lordship to Jesus, Paul places Him on the “uncreated” side of the Creator/creation divide.

While Jesus’ role as Lord includes His authority over the new creation, this does not diminish His divinity. The article suggests that Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 refers only to the new creation. However, the language of “all things” (ta panta) and the parallel with Colossians 1:16-17 indicate that Paul is speaking of both original and new creation. Jesus is not merely Lord of the church but of the entire cosmos. Jesus’ role in redemption complements, rather than contradicts, His divine identity. The cross demonstrates His humility and obedience (Phil. 2:6-8), but His exaltation as Lord (Phil. 2:9-11) affirms His divinity.

Paul’s reformulation of the Shema does not violate Jewish monotheism but redefines it to include Jesus. The Shema affirms that YHWH is “one” (echad), a term that can denote a composite unity (e.g., Genesis 2:24, Ezekiel 37:17). Paul’s distinction between the Father and the Son reflects relational roles within the one divine essence. The early Christians, including Paul, were devout Jews who rejected idolatry. Their worship of Jesus (e.g., Phil. 2:10-11, 1 Cor. 16:22) would have been inconceivable unless they believed Jesus shared in YHWH’s identity.