Imaginative. I think Mike is borrowing an argument Dustin Smith used in his debate with James White. There is no allusion to Psalm 110 in 1 Cor 8:6. None. Paul does adapt the psalm later in the same letter (15:25), where the language of reigning until every enemy is under his feet is unmistakable. But 8:6 contains *none* of that vocabulary - no “right hand,” no “sit,” no “enemies,” no “footstool.” To say the “one Lord” here is “explicitly” the “Lord” of Psalm 110 is to read a text the verse never cites. What the verse does do is rework the Shema. Compare the Greek: Deut 6:4 LXX
 κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
 “the Lord our God, the Lord is one” 1 Cor 8:6
 εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ … καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
 “one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ” Paul takes the two titles of the Shema and splits them across two persons while keeping the monotheistic “one,” set over against the many gods and lords of the pagan world. The parallel structure is deliberate: -εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν - καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ “From whom / for whom” / “through whom” is creation/agency language (Rom 11:36), not the enthronement scene of Psalm 110. Importing that psalm to define “Lord” here as a subordinate ruler is *not* exegesis of the verse; it is an external framework the text itself never supplies. The irony is that any Jesus who is not equal to the Father in all things ends up being precisely what Paul is condemning. Since worship is restricted to YHWH, a Jesus who is a mere creature - no matter how exalted or deified - becomes a “god” in some sense, the very thing Paul rejects. That reading leaves Paul in double-talk and apparent contradiction.