1 Corinthians 8:6

Reading

Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, 2008, ch. 6) argues that Paul takes the Shema — "YHWH our God, YHWH is one" (Deut 6:4) — and distributes it across Father and Son, not adding Jesus alongside God but including Jesus within the identity of the one God of Israel. On this reading, the Shema's two key terms — "God" (theos) and "Lord" (kyrios, translating YHWH) — are split: "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." For a first-century Jew to restructure the Shema to include a second figure would be extraordinary and unprecedented in Jewish literature. No angel, patriarch, or intermediary figure receives this treatment.

Reasoning

On the Trinitarian reading, heis theos and heis kyrios correspond to the Shema's affirmation of God's oneness. Paul is not adding a second deity but identifying Jesus as intrinsic to what "one God" means. Gordon Fee (Pauline Christology, 2007) argues that the creative prepositions (ek and dia) distribute divine functions across Father and Son without subordinating one to the other — both are included in the one creative act. N.T. Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2013) contends that Paul's "christological monotheism" is not an innovation against Judaism but a development from within it, driven by the experience of the risen Christ. This reading gained prominence in the 1990s and has become influential, though it remains contested.

Strongest counterargument

Paul explicitly says "one God" equals "the Father" — not the Father and the Son together. The structure actually distinguishes: the one God is the Father; the one Lord is Jesus. If Paul intended to include Jesus in the identity of the one God, why does he identify "one God" exclusively as the Father? The very verse that is supposed to prove Jesus is included in the divine identity actually reserves the title "God" for the Father alone. Furthermore, even on the most generous Trinitarian reading, this verse does not get you to Trinitarianism. The Holy Spirit receives no mention at all. If Paul were articulating a Trinitarian theology — one God in three co-equal persons — the omission of the third person from his most explicit monotheistic confession is difficult to explain. At most, this verse speaks to a binitarian pattern, not a Trinitarian one.

Key scholars: Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, Gordon Fee

Reading

"One God" is the Father, full stop. Paul preserves strict Jewish monotheism by identifying the one God as the Father alone, while Jesus holds the distinct role of Lord — the supreme agent through whom God acts. The prepositions are decisive: ek (from) the Father marks the ultimate source; dia (through) Jesus marks the instrumental agent. Source and agent are not the same. Dale Tuggy argues (What is the Trinity?; "On Bauckham's Bargain," Theology Today, 2013) that Paul's modified Shema places the Father in the "God" slot and Jesus in the "Lord" slot — this distinguishes them rather than including Jesus within the divine identity. The "through whom" language is standard agency language: all things come from the Father as source, through Christ as agent. (See also BiblicalUnitarian.com.) Tuggy also presses a logical problem with Bauckham's "divine identity" concept: if "divine identity" means numerical identity (i.e., the Father and the Son are the same being), then the Father is the Son — which Bauckham denies. But if "divine identity" does not mean numerical identity, then what does it mean? The concept becomes a theological placeholder that does not actually explain anything. It gestures toward inclusion in the divine without specifying what kind of inclusion is compatible with monotheism and distinguishable from having two Gods. This logical trap is unresolved in the "divine identity" framework.

Reasoning

The same passage (v. 5) mentions "many lords" in the pagan world — the word kyrios is not inherently a divine title but denotes authority and lordship. David is called kyrios; Caesar is kyrios. Paul distinguishes between God and Lord, not because he is splitting the Shema to include Jesus, but because he is making two distinct affirmations: there is one God (the Father) and one supreme human agent (the Lord Jesus). The distinction is consistent with Paul's theology elsewhere (1 Cor 15:24–28; 11:3). The ek/dia prepositional hierarchy is significant and has Jewish precedent. Philo uses identical prepositional language: God is the cause "from whom" (ex hou), while the Logos is the instrument "through whom" (di' hou) — and for Philo, the Logos is emphatically not a second God. Paul's framework matches this: the Father is the source of all things; Jesus is the agent through whom the Father works. In Jewish creation theology, the distinction between source and instrument always preserves hierarchy.

Strongest counterargument

Whether Paul is consciously restructuring the Shema is debatable — the two texts share only three words (heis, theos, kyrios) in a different order. But the parallel use of "one God" and "one Lord" in a confessional statement is notable, and the Trinitarian reading of this passage has gained significant scholarly support since the 1990s. If the Shema allusion is intentional, placing Jesus in the kyrios slot is remarkable even if Jesus is given a distinct role.

Key scholars: Anthony Buzzard, James D.G. Dunn, Dale Tuggy

Reading

Beyond the Trinitarian and Biblical Unitarian readings, scholars highlight additional considerations from Jewish Wisdom theology and Hellenistic background. Jesus fills the role of God's Wisdom or Logos as the agent of creation (cf. Prov 8, Wis 7–9). The preposition dia (through) is the characteristic preposition for the instrument of creation in Jewish Wisdom theology: God creates through Wisdom. Paul places Jesus in this instrumental, mediatorial role — the one through whom God accomplishes his creative and redemptive purposes.

Reasoning

The ek/dia distinction maps perfectly onto Jewish creation theology where God is the source and Wisdom is the instrument. Philo uses identical prepositional language: God is the cause "from whom" (ex hou), while the Logos is the instrument "through whom" (di' hou). Paul places Jesus in exactly the position that Jewish theology assigned to personified Wisdom — supreme among all creatures, agent of God's purposes, but not identical with God himself.

Strongest counterargument

An agent who merely fills Wisdom's role should not receive the structural position that YHWH occupies in the Shema. Paul does not say "one God and his Wisdom" — he says "one Lord, Jesus Christ," using the divine title kyrios in a Shema-structured confession. Agent language cannot fully account for the unique devotional and confessional status Paul gives to Jesus here.

Key scholars: James D.G. Dunn, Larry Hurtado, Pheme Perkins

Reading

Paul is not splitting God into multiple persons. "One God" and "one Lord" are complementary confessional titles for the one divine identity revealed in Christ. Oneness interpreters often read this as economic distinction: the Father as source-language, Jesus as incarnate revelatory and mediatorial language.

Reasoning

On this reading, the verse protects strict monotheism while preserving the exalted christological confession of early Christian worship. The ek/dia distinction can be framed as role-language in salvation history rather than ontological hierarchy between persons in God.

Strongest counterargument

The syntax still distinguishes "one God, the Father" from "one Lord, Jesus Christ" in a way many readers see as more than role-language. If Paul intended identity without interpersonal distinction, this formulation is unexpectedly indirect and leaves significant pressure from other passages where Jesus addresses and obeys the Father.

Key scholars: David K. Bernard, David Norris