Skip to content

Web Research Findings

Study Question

When Jesus says "the only true God" (John 17:3) and Paul says "one God, the Father" (1 Corinthians 8:6), do these passages exclude Jesus from deity? Examine the full chapter context of John 17 and the Shema background of 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Sources Found

1. Richard Bauckham — Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Eerdmans, 2008)

URL: growrag.org (summary); reviewed at denverjournal.denverseminary.edu (reviewed by Craig L. Blomberg)

Key claims: - Paul deliberately produces a "Christian version of the Shema" in 1 Cor 8:6, including Jesus within the unique divine identity of Israel's God - Direct quote: "Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema a 'Lord' the Shema does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema affirms to be one." - Direct quote: "The unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah." - If Paul were understood as "adding" the one Lord to the one God, "he would certainly be producing... outright ditheism" — but the parallel structure avoids this by expanding the subject rather than dividing it - Early first-century Judaism preserved strong boundaries between God and humanity, yet from the earliest stages of Christological development, Jesus was equated with those characteristics of God — especially creation and providence — that most defined Jewish monotheism - Believers were not calling Jesus a second god or a demi-god but "ascribing to him the very identity of Yahweh" - The "divine identity" framework centers on creation and providence as the defining markers distinguishing God from all else

Greek analysis: Bauckham breaks 1 Cor 8:6 into parallel components: (a) one God [theos], the Father, (b) from whom all things and we for him, (c) one Lord [kyrios], Jesus Christ, (d) through whom all things and we through him. The bipartite structure echoes the Shema's heis theos ... kai heis kyrios. The "our" of Deut 6:4 becomes the "for us" of 1 Cor 8:6.

Relevance: Central to whether 1 Cor 8:6 includes or excludes Jesus from deity. Bauckham's "divine identity" framework is the dominant scholarly paradigm for this question. His claim that Paul identifies Jesus as the Lord of the Shema (rather than adding a second figure) needs verification against the actual Greek of Deut 6:4 LXX and 1 Cor 8:6.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

2. N.T. Wright — The Climax of the Covenant (Fortress, 1992)

URL: Cited in postost.net

Key claims: - Direct quote: "Paul has placed Jesus within an explicit statement... of the doctrine that Israel's God is the one and only God, the creator of the world" and "has redefined it christologically, producing what we can only call a sort of Christological monotheism" (Climax of the Covenant, 129) - The "recognition that Paul has produced a Christian version of the Shema is now widely recognized" - Scholars who have promoted this view include Simon Gathercole, Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Larry Hurtado, and James Dunn

Relevance: Wright's formulation is the most cited articulation of the "Christological reformulation of the Shema" thesis. The claim that Paul "placed Jesus within" the Shema needs testing against the actual text.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

3. Gordon Fee — The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT, 1987)

URL: Cited in postost.net

Key claims: - Direct quote: "He has kept the 'one' intact, but he has divided the Shema into two parts, with theos (God) now referring to the Father, and kyrios (Lord) referring to Jesus Christ" (First Corinthians, 90) - Fee uses "divided" language rather than Bauckham's "expanded" language, implying Paul split the Shema between two persons

Greek analysis: Fee identifies the key move as Paul distributing theos to the Father and kyrios to the Son from within a single monotheistic confession.

Relevance: Fee's "divided/split" framing differs from Bauckham's "expanded identity" framing. Both agree Paul maps Shema language onto Father and Son, but the theological implications differ. This is a key scholarly tension to track.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

4. Andrew Perriman — "Is Jesus included in the 'divine identity' in 1 Corinthians 8:6?" (postost.net, 2015)

URL: postost.net

Key claims (counter-argument to Bauckham/Wright): - Paul does NOT quote the Shema verbatim in 8:4 — he already drops kyrios. Why quote incompletely if intending a deliberate Shema division? - Better OT background may be Malachi 2:11-12 ("Did not one God create us? Is there not one father of us all?"), which addresses Jewish idolatry — the actual context of 1 Corinthians 8-10 - Direct quote: "This coherent apocalyptic narrative about Jesus as Lord presents him not as an integral part of the divine identity but as an independent agent." - The categories are functionally asymmetric: "All things are from God the Father" (source) versus "through Jesus Christ" (agency). Source differs from agency. - Direct quote: "If this agent is included in the divine identity... he must retain sufficient autonomy to renounce the title of 'Lord' at the end" (citing 1 Cor 15:24-28) - Kyrios is not exclusively reserved for YHWH, as clear from Psalm 109:1 LXX (110:1 MT) where both YHWH and the Davidic king receive kyrios

Greek analysis: Perriman distinguishes kyrios usage: Psalm 109:1 LXX preserves both kyrios (for YHWH) and kyrios (for adon/the king); Genesis 24:12 LXX shows "O LORD (kyrios), God of my master (adon) Abraham." Both create hierarchies without ontological fusion.

Relevance: This is the strongest scholarly counter-argument to the Bauckham/Wright "Christological Shema" thesis. The preposition distinction (ek vs. dia), the 1 Cor 15:24-28 subordination text, and the Psalm 110:1 background all need careful biblical verification.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

5. Brant Pitre — "Monotheism and the Divinity of Jesus According to Paul" (Catholic Productions)

URL: catholicproductions.com

Key claims: - Paul applies OT monotheistic passages directly to Jesus: Isaiah 45:23 ("To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear") is reformulated in Philippians 2:9-11 ("at the name of Jesus every knee should bow... every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord") - The Greek kyrios simultaneously translates the Hebrew divine name YHWH in Septuagint contexts, functioned as a title for earthly rulers and Caesar, and appears applied to Jesus in Philippians 2 - Paul weaves monotheistic Jewish Scripture passages around Christ's person and worship - The analysis reveals "incarnational christology" maintaining both full divinity and full humanity within strict monotheism

Relevance: The Isaiah 45:23 / Philippians 2:10-11 parallel is a key data point for how NT writers handle OT monotheism texts. If Paul applies exclusive-YHWH language to Jesus, this bears directly on whether 1 Cor 8:6 includes Jesus in deity.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

6. Cross Theology — "Does John 17:3 teach Unitarianism?" (crosstheology.wordpress.com)

URL: crosstheology.wordpress.com

Key claims: - John 17:3 in isolation appears to exclude Jesus from deity, but the full chapter context contradicts this reading - John 17:5: Jesus requests glorification "with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" — claiming pre-incarnational divine glory - John 17:10: "All mine are thine, and thine are mine" — mutual ownership of all things, a claim only deity could make - John 17:21-22: "one as we are one" — divine unity between Father and Son - John 17:24: "thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world" — pre-creation relationship - Supporting Johannine passages: John 1:1-2 (the Word was God), 5:17-23 (equal honor), 10:30, 38 (Father and I are one; mutual indwelling) - Merrill C. Tenney: "To say the absence of the article bespeaks of the non-absolute deity of the Word is sheer folly" - The "only true God" (monos alethinos theos) contrasts the Father with false/pagan gods, not with the Son

Greek analysis: The monos ("only") in John 17:3 functions to contrast the true God with idols/false gods, parallel to 1 Thess 1:9 ("turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God"). The kai ("and") connecting "the only true God" with "Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" grammatically pairs rather than separates them.

Relevance: Directly addresses the study question. The claim that monos contrasts with pagan gods rather than excluding the Son needs verification by examining every NT use of monos with theos, and the full chapter context claims need verse-by-verse verification.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

7. Daniel Wallace — Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996) [on Colwell's Rule and John 1:1]

URL: dangitbill.wordpress.com

Key claims: - Colwell's original rule (JBL 52, 1933, pp. 12-21): "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article" - Colwell's rule is often misapplied as a converse: the rule does NOT prove that anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are definite - Philip Harner's correction (JBL 92, 1973): 80% of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are qualitative, 20% definite, rarely indefinite - Direct quote from Harner on John 1:1: "I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite" - Wallace's synthesis: "an anarthrous pre-verbal PN is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite" - For John 1:1c (kai theos en ho logos): the qualitative reading means "the Word had the nature/essence of God" — neither "a god" (indefinite) nor convertible with "God was the Word" (fully definite)

Greek analysis: The anarthrous theos in the pre-verbal predicate nominative position (theos en ho logos) is qualitative per Harner's statistical analysis. This means John is asserting that the Logos possesses the divine nature/essence while maintaining personal distinction from the Father (ho theos of 1:1b).

Relevance: Critical for understanding the Johannine theology that frames John 17:3. If John 1:1 establishes that the Word "was God" in a qualitative sense (possessing divine nature), then John 17:3 must be read within that established framework.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

8. Murray J. Harris — on John 20:28 (Thomas's Confession)

URL: en.wikipedia.org (summarizing Harris's work)

Key claims: - Thomas's words "My Lord and my God" (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou) represent "the crowning christological affirmation of the Fourth Gospel" - Harris proposes Thomas used a liturgical form drawn from the Septuagint - The phrase "said to Him" (eipen auto) explicitly indicates Thomas addressed Jesus directly, not God the Father - Greek uses nominative case for both Kyrios and Theos (rather than vocative), but "said to him" makes the referent unambiguous - Scholars cited: Murray J. Harris, A.T. Robertson (p. 461), Andreas Kostenberger (John, BECNT, 2004, p. 580), Rene Kieffer (Oxford Bible Commentary, 2007, p. 998) - Historical context: Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96) demanded to be addressed as "dominus et deus noster" (our Lord and God) — John may be deliberately countering imperial worship claims - Augustine: Thomas "saw and touched the man, and confessed the God whom he neither saw nor touched"

Greek analysis: The nominative ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou functions as vocative (direct address), confirmed by eipen auto ("said to Him"). Jesus does NOT correct Thomas but affirms the confession (John 20:29).

Relevance: If Thomas calls Jesus "my God" (ho theos mou) and Jesus accepts this without correction, this is a direct datum for the deity question — and it occurs in the same Gospel that records John 17:3.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

9. Romans 9:5 Punctuation Debate — Metzger and Text-Critical Scholarship

URL: textandtranslation.org

Key claims: - The original Greek manuscripts lacked punctuation, creating the central ambiguity - Five arguments for the Christ = God reading (from Metzger's minority position in the UBS committee): 1. Sentence structure — the doxology naturally applies to Christ 2. An asyndetic doxology would render the participle hon unnecessary 3. Pauline doxologies are never asyndetic (disconnected from context) 4. Biblical/Semitic asyndetic doxologies use different construction patterns 5. No contextual motivation exists for an independent doxology here - Metzger's counter-argument (majority): "nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos as theos" — and it was "considered tantamount to impossible" that Paul would call Christ "God blessed forever" - Trajectory: The "new perspective" (separating the doxology) peaked mid-20th century (TEV 1966, NLV 1969) but declined by late 20th century. Greek textual editions (1979-1983) changed punctuation from semicolon to comma, and NRSV (1989) reads "Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever" - Four uncials (A, B, C, L) and 26+ minuscules contain manuscript punctuation after sarka, though Metzger concedes early manuscript punctuation is "so sporadic and haphazard that one cannot infer with confidence the construction given by the punctuator"

Greek text: hon hoi pateres kai ex hon ho christos to kata sarka ho on epi panton theos eulogetos eis tous aionas amen

Relevance: If Paul calls Christ "God blessed forever" in Rom 9:5, this directly bears on whether 1 Cor 8:6 excludes Jesus from deity. The grammatical arguments (especially #3 — Paul never uses asyndetic doxologies) need verification by checking every Pauline doxology.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

10. Granville Sharp Rule — Applied to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1

URL: christianpublishinghouse.co

Key claims: - Sharp's rule (1798): when two singular, personal nouns appear under one article linked by kai, they must designate the same individual - Application to Titus 2:13: "the great God and Savior" — the definite article ho appears only once before "God," and per Sharp's rule, both "God" and "Savior" refer to the same person: Jesus Christ - Challenges: G.B. Winer (19th century) "warned against dogmatism regarding these verses"; James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner "admitted that Koine Greek sometimes lacks a second article even when speaking of multiple individuals"; Calvin Winstanley "wondered why Sharp gave only a handful of New Testament examples" - Koine Greek article usage is "more flexible than earlier presumed" based on papyri discoveries - The article concludes that "grammar alone does not deliver an indisputable verdict" and that context determines interpretation

Greek analysis: The construction in Titus 2:13 is tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou — one article (tou) governing both theou and soteros, connected by kai. Sharp's rule predicts a single referent.

Relevance: If Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 call Jesus "God and Savior," these are explicit deity affirmations from the same apostolic authors who wrote 1 Cor 8:6 and the Johannine corpus. Needs verification of the actual Greek construction and the rule's validity.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

11. A.T. Robertson and Robert Reymond — on John 17:5 Pre-existence

URL: christiandefense.org

Key claims: - The aorist imperative doxason ("glorify") in John 17:5 is a command-form, not merely a request — Daniel Wallace: "with the aorist, the force generally is to command the action as a whole" - Para with the dative case (para seauto, "with yourself") indicates literal physical proximity ("near," "beside," "in the presence of") - A.T. Robertson: "This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side" - Robert Reymond: "The Gospel of John witnesses that Jesus claimed eternal preexistence" - Para appears ten times in John's literature, and in every instance denotes literal proximity, never metaphorical "in the mind"

Greek analysis: The phrase te doxe he eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi ("the glory which I had before the world was, with you") uses the imperfect eichon (continuous past possession) and the preposition para + dative (personal proximity). This indicates actual, conscious, personal pre-existence — not merely a plan in God's mind.

Relevance: John 17:5 is in the same prayer as 17:3. If Jesus claims actual pre-existent glory "with" the Father "before the world was," the "only true God" statement two verses earlier cannot be excluding the speaker from deity. The imperfect tense eichon (continuous past) is a key grammatical datum.

Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Summary of Scholarly Landscape

The scholarly debate on whether John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 exclude Jesus from deity falls along three major positions:

Position 1 — Christological Monotheism (Bauckham, Wright, Fee, Hurtado, Gathercole, Witherington): This dominant scholarly paradigm argues that Paul deliberately reformulates the Shema to include Jesus within the unique divine identity. The "one God" / "one Lord" structure does not create two gods but expands the monotheistic confession to encompass both Father and Son. John 17:3's "only true God" contrasts with pagan deities, not with the Son. This position is "now widely recognized" in mainstream NT scholarship.

Position 2 — Functional Subordination without Ontological Inclusion (Perriman, some historical-critical scholars): Paul distinguishes Jesus from God by assigning different prepositions (ek for the Father as source, dia for Jesus as agent). Kyrios applied to Jesus derives from Psalm 110:1 enthronement (a human king exalted to God's right hand), not from YHWH's unique identity. 1 Cor 15:24-28 (where the Son hands the kingdom back to the Father) is seen as incompatible with full inclusion in deity. John 17:3 is read as genuinely distinguishing the Father as "the only true God" from the sent Son.

Position 3 — Unitarian Reading (Jehovah's Witnesses, Biblical Unitarians, some Muslims): Both texts straightforwardly exclude Jesus from deity. The Father alone is God; Jesus is a created agent. John 1:1 should read "a god." This position is rejected by virtually all mainstream NT scholarship but represents a live interpretive tradition.

The key unresolved scholarly questions include: (1) whether the ek/dia preposition distinction in 1 Cor 8:6 indicates ontological difference or complementary divine roles; (2) how 1 Cor 15:24-28 relates to 8:6; (3) whether monos in John 17:3 is exclusive (ruling out the Son) or contrastive (ruling out false gods); and (4) whether the Johannine prologue (1:1-18) and Thomas confession (20:28) establish a theological framework that makes the Unitarian reading of 17:3 untenable.

Research Directives for Downstream Agents

  1. Verify the Shema mapping: Compare Deut 6:4 LXX word-by-word with 1 Cor 8:6 Greek — does Paul use every word of the Shema? Does he truly "split" theos and kyrios between Father and Son?
  2. Check preposition significance: Examine all Pauline uses of ek ("from") and dia ("through") with reference to God and Christ — does the distinction imply ontological hierarchy, or is dia also used of God's own creative activity?
  3. Investigate 1 Cor 15:24-28: Does the Son's handing the kingdom to the Father contradict full deity, or is this an economic/functional distinction within a shared divine identity?
  4. Verify monos (G3441) usage: Examine every NT occurrence of monos with theos — does it always exclude all other persons, or can it function contrastively (true God vs. false gods)?
  5. Examine John 17 full chapter context: Verify that v.5 (pre-existent glory), v.10 (mutual ownership), v.21-22 (divine unity), and v.24 (pre-creation love) genuinely support a deity reading when read alongside v.3
  6. Check the Granville Sharp construction: Parse the actual Greek of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 — does the single-article construction genuinely identify Jesus as theos?
  7. Verify Rom 9:5 grammar: Run Greek parser on Rom 9:5 — does the participial clause ho on epi panton theos eulogetos naturally apply to Christ or to a separate doxology?
  8. Examine John 1:1 grammar: Parse John 1:1 Greek — verify the anarthrous theos in predicate position and whether Harner's qualitative reading is grammatically justified
  9. Verify John 20:28: Parse the Greek of Thomas's confession — confirm nominative-for-vocative usage and that eipen auto makes Jesus the referent
  10. Check Isaiah 44:6, 45:5-6, 45:21-22 applications: How do NT writers apply these exclusive-YHWH texts? Does Philippians 2:10-11 genuinely cite Isaiah 45:23 and apply it to Jesus?
  11. Examine Philippians 2:6-11: Parse the Greek of morphe theou, isa theo, and the kenosis — does Paul affirm pre-existent deity or merely an exalted status?
  12. Investigate the alethinos (G228) in John 17:3: Does "true" (alethinos) mean "genuine/real" (contrasting with false gods) or "ultimate/absolute" (potentially excluding the Son)?
  13. Check 1 John 5:20: "This is the true God and eternal life" — does the pronoun houtos refer to Jesus Christ (the nearest antecedent) or to the Father?
  14. Verify Perriman's Malachi 2:10 claim: Is the "one God" / "one Father" language in Malachi 2 actually a better background for 1 Cor 8:6 than the Shema?
  15. Examine John 5:17-23: Jesus claims the Father's works and demands equal honor — verify the Greek of isa theo (equal with God) and its grammatical force