Andrey Romanov, «Through One Lord Only: Theological Interpretation of the Meaning of 'dia', in 1 Cor 8,6», Vol. 96 (2015) 391-415
The present study attempts to clarify the theological meaning of dia, in 1 Cor 8,6. Traditionally the preposition is understood as an indication of a contrast between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus' role is described as either instrumental or analogous to the role of Jewish Wisdom. The present study questions these interpretations on the basis of the analysis of the structure of the verse. In this author's opinion, dia, here indicates the unique functions of Jesus Christ which make him the co-worker of God the Father in both creation and salvation.
04_Romanov_391_co_415 30/10/15 13:10 Pagina 411
411 THROUGH ONE LORD ONLY 411
Basil’s assumption that in 1 Cor 8,6 “the phrases are not op-
posed to one another” seems to be the key for understanding the
distinction between the referents of the prepositions in Paul. If one
assumes that it is not Paul’s intention to stress the contrast between
God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in his theological
scheme, then one is better able not only to reconcile the meaning
of dia, in 1 Cor 8,6 and Rom 11,36 59 but also to solve the problem
concerning the exact referents in some related passages (like Rom
11,34 and 1 Cor 2,16). If Paul does not indeed care who — God
or Christ — will be understood by his audience as ku,rioj (like in
Rom 11,34 and therefore 11,36), then in some places he can use
the concepts “God”, “Lord”, “Christ” interchangeably. If so, there
is no reason to regard the functions implied by dia, in 1 Cor 8,6b
as different from the functions implied by dia, in Rom 11,36 (and
by per in 4 Ezdra) especially taking into account that it is used in
the same framework of evk and eivj. This function can be exercised
only by one who is ku,rioj.
The question remains, however, why Paul exploits in 1 Cor 8,6
the phrase where both God and the Lord are mentioned but not the
wording which he uses in Rom 11,36? In my view, this question
can be answered if one considers the content of 1 Cor 8,6 not only
as in opposition to v. 5 (where many “gods” and “lords” are men-
tioned) but also as a correction of the content of v. 4 where “one
God” is proclaimed. There are good reasons to regard v. 4 as Paul’s
quotation from the Corinthians’ letter to him 60. As in the case of
8,1, so here Paul corrects the self-confidence of the Corinthians
(oi;damen o[ti…). The Corinthians’ statement that ouvde.n ei;dwlon
evn ko,smw| and ouvdei.j qeo.j eiv mh. ei-j seems to be self-evident,
but Paul elaborates it in two ways: firstly, he points to God’s func-
tions as the ground of the substantiation of the oneness of God; and
secondly, he adds to the Corinthians’ formula the figure of the Lord
(ei-j ku,rioj). It seems that in some respects the Corinthians (or
59
As, also, probably the meaning of dia, in Heb 1,2 (with respect to the
Son) and in Heb 2,10 (with respect to God).
60
The list of scholars who defend the Corinthians’ authorship of v. 4 is
impressive indeed. It is sufficient to mention here A. Robertson, A. Plummer,
C.K. Barrett, J.C. Hurd, G. Fee, and J. Fitzmyer. The detailed analysis of their
arguments will be too extensive for the present study; for me, however, they
are definitively convincing.