Abstract
This volume is a revised version of Bruno’s doctoral thesis written at Wheaton College under the supervision of Douglas Moo. He seeks to investigate the expression ‘God is one’, as it occurs in the Pauline letters at Rom 3.30 and Gal 3.20. He notes that other studies have focused on the use of the Shema notably in 1 Cor 8.6 to assess the impact of Paul’s monotheistic convictions on his christology (p. 3). The emphasis of this study differs from previous investigations in that it seeks to determine how Paul’s use of the Shema confession that ‘God is one’ connects with his belief that Gentiles are included in the people of God (p. 20). Furthermore, he compares Pauline usage of the Shema with that of his near contemporaries.
The thesis is arranged over six chapters. After the introduction, chapter two looks at the use of the Shema in the Old Testament, commencing with a discussion of Deut 6.4 and then looking at subsequent allusions to this text. Passages examined include Zech 14.9 and Malachi 2. The next chapter examines the use of the Shema in early Jewish texts. Bruno concludes in these texts that the ‘God is one’ functions as a boundary marker signalling monotheistic belief (pp. 108-113). The next two chapters examine the use of ‘God is one’ language in Rom 3.30 and Gal 3.20 respectively. It is argued that Paul sees the formula as supporting his universalizing logic. Hence it is suggested that Paul ‘grounds the unity of Jew and Gentile in this covenantal confession’ (p. 198). Moreover ‘given the eschatological fulfillment that Paul saw with the coming of Christ, it seems that his understanding of the confession “God is one” should include aspects of this eschatological monotheism [found in Zech 14.9]’ (p. 204).
Technically Bruno has executed a solid piece of work. Its persuasiveness will depend largely on whether readers are as equally confident as the author that there are indeed allusions to Deut 6.4 to be found in Rom 3.30 and Gal 3.20. Simply as an observation, it is noted that in the marginal notes and table of citations and allusions in NA28, Deut 6.4 is not listed. Similarly, Ciampa in his study on ‘Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans’, (in Moyise and Menken [eds], Deuteronomy in the New Testament [2007] 99-117), does not identify either Rom 3.30 or Gal 3.20 as alluding to Deut 6.4. One hopes that the foundation on which the edifice of the thesis is constructed is solid. However, others can come to their own conclusion on that matter.