04_Romanov_391_co_415 30/10/15 13:10 Pagina 412 412 ANDREY ROMANOV 412 some of them) disregard the significance of Jesus Christ as the Lord 61, and this is one of Paul’s concerns throughout the whole letter. According to Paul, the Corinthians should not forget or ignore Jesus Christ in the basic expression of their faith. 1 Cor 8,4 is ap- parently derived from the Jewish Shema (Deut 6,4: ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n ku,rioj ei-j evstin) as the fundamental principle of Jewish monotheism. Paul in response offers the Corinthians the Christian- ized Shema 62. In the verse in which God himself is present, Paul nevertheless designates Jesus Christ as ei-j ku,rioj making it clear that Jesus Christ as the only Lord should be included within the Shema 63. In other words, “the Lord our God one Lord” from Deut 6,4 corresponds to both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. As Fee points out, Paul in v 6 “offers a… ‘correction’ to their [the Corinthians’] ‘theology”’ expressed in v. 4 and “insists that their understanding of the ‘one God’ must now include Christ as well” 64. Through the description of Jesus Christ as God the Father’s co- worker Paul stresses the similar uniqueness of the Lord, that is, ouvdei.j ku,rioj eiv mh. ei-j. According to 1 Cor 8,6 Christ’s lordship lasts from the moment of his participation in the collaborative (with God the Father) act of creating all things till the end of the final judg- ment after which he “hands over the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor 15,24). Jesus Christ, in other words, is the true operating Lord. This is what the Corinthians should never forget in order to “be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1,8). To stress this is, apparently, not so necessary for Paul’s argument in Romans. The phrase in Rom 11,36 refers to qeo,j and ku,rioj from Rom 11,33.34. Paul’s phrases in Rom 11,36 and 1 Cor 8,6 mean the same although they are presented differently in different contexts. Also the prepositions in these formulas mean the same and therefore do not indicate the inseparable contrast between God 61 Fee calls it “an early crisis in Christology” characterized by “a diminished view of who Christ is”; see FEE, Pauline Christology, 84, 86. 62 Cf. de Lacey who follows F.F. Bruce when he acknowledges that “Paul presents [in 1 Cor 8:6] a ‘Christianizing’ of the shema‘”; D.R. DE LACEY, “‘One Lord’ in Pauline Christology”, Christ the Lord. Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie (ed. H.H. ROWDON) (Leicester 1982) 200. 63 Cf. T. WRIGHT, “Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8”, ID., Climax of the Covenant. Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis, MN 1992) 129. 64 See FEE, Christology, 88-89.