Did Paul Split the Shema? James Dunn Says No

In one of his final works, the preeminent British New Testament scholar on Christology, Dr. James D. G. Dunn, directly challenged the now-popular claim that Paul “split the Shema” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 — a proposal Dunn himself had significantly helped to popularize in earlier works such as Christology in the Making. In Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, Dunn reconsidered that position and raised serious doubts about whether Paul ever intended to divide Israel’s foundational confession of strict unitary monotheism. Specifically, he questioned the idea that Paul distributed the divine name YHWH (LORD) to the Father and Elohim (God) to the Son, pushing back against fellow Trinitarian scholar Richard Bauckham:

“There is controversy at this point. Bauckham [in God Crucified, p. 38] insists: ‘the only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema’ … He is identifying Jesus as the “Lord” whom the Shema affirms to be one … the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah.’

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 many gods and many lords of Graeco-Roman worship.” (pp 107-110)

Dunn’s final analysis marks a notable shift from his earlier formulation. Rather than portraying Paul as “splitting the Shema,” Dunn ultimately recognized that Paul was reaffirming it. The apostle identifies “one God” explicitly as “the Father” alone (1 Cor. 8:6), in harmony with Jesus’ own confession that the Father is “the only true God” (John 17:3). At the same time, Jesus is honored as the exalted “one Lord Messiah,” in accordance with Psalm 110:1 — the most frequently quoted or alluded-to Psalm in the New Testament:

YHWH says to my lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Crucially, the second “lord” in this verse translates the Hebrew adoni, not Adonai. The term adoni occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and is never used to refer to Deity. Thus, far from redefining the Shema or incorporating Jesus into the identity of YHWH (whatever that may be taken to mean), Paul’s confession reflects Jesus’ own strict unitary creed: YHWH, our one God and Father, is one YHWH.