Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 8:6

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

6. to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ] There is but one eternal First Cause and fountain of existence. Compare for the whole passage Eph 4:5-6. “The ancient doctors have not stuck to call the Father the origin, the cause, the author, the root, the fountain, and the head of the Son. The Son is from the Father, receiving His subsistence by generation from Him. The Father is not from the Son, as being what He is from none.” Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, Art. i.

and we in him ] Rather, as margin, for Him.

by whom are all things ] God the Son, the Eternal Word or Reason of the Father, is the Agent by Whom He works in the creation, preservation, redemption, regeneration of all things. Cf. St Joh 1:3; Joh 1:10; Eph 3:9; Col 1:10; Heb 1:2.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

But to us – Christians. We acknowledge but one God, Whatever the pagan worship, we know that there is but one God; and he alone has a right to rule over us.

One God, the Father – Whom we acknowledge as the Father of all; Author of all things; and who sustains to all his works the relation of a father. The word Father here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction – the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him. This is manifest:

(1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term Son when he comes to speak of the one Lord Jesus Christ; and,

(2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father to his creatures. He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name Father is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psa 103:13; Jer 31:9; Mal 1:6; Mal 2:10; Mat 6:9; Luk 11:2, etc. In other places it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the second; and in these instances the correlative Son is used, Luk 10:22; Luk 22:42; Joh 1:18; Joh 3:35; Joh 5:19-23, Joh 5:26, Joh 5:30, Joh 5:36; Heb 1:5; 2Pe 1:17, etc.

Of whom – ex hou. From whom as a fountain and source; by whose counsel, plan, and purpose. He is the great source of all; and all depend on him. It was by his purpose and power that all things were formed, and to all he sustains the relation of a Father. The agent in producing all things, however, was the Son, Col 1:16; see the note at Joh 1:3.

Are all things – These words evidently refer to the whole work of creation, as deriving their origin from God, Gen 1:1. Everything has thus been formed in accordance with his plan; and all things now depend on him as their Father.

And we – We Christians. We are what we are by him. We owe our existence to him; and by him we have been regenerated and saved. It is owing to his counsel, purpose, agency, that we have an existence; and owing to him that we have the hope of eternal life. The leading idea here is, probably, that to God Christians owe their hopes and happiness.

In him – ( eis auton); or rather unto him: that is, we are formed for him, and should live to his glory. We have been made what we are, as Christians, that we may promote his honor and glory.

And one Lord … – One Lord in contradistinction from the many lords whom the pagans worshipped. The word Lord here is used in the sense of proprietor, ruler, governor, or king; and the idea is, that Christians acknowledge subjection to Him alone, and not to many sovereigns, as the pagans did. Jesus Christ is the Ruler and Lord of his people. They acknowledge their allegiance to him as their supreme Lawgiver and King. They do not acknowledge subjection to many rulers, whether imaginary gods or human beings; but receive their laws from him alone. The word Lord here does not imply of necessity any inferiority to God; since it is a term which is frequently applied to God himself. The idea in the passage is, that from God, the Father of all, we derive our existence, and all that we have; and that we acknowledge immediate and direct subjection to the Lord Jesus as our Lawgiver and Sovereign. From him Christians receive their laws, and to him they submit their lives. And this idea is so far from supposing inferiority in the Lord Jesus to God, that it rather supposes equality; since a right to give laws to people, to rule their consciences, to direct their religious opinions and their lives, can appropriately pertain only to one who has equality with God.

By whom … – di’ hou. By whose agency; or through whom, as the agent. The word by ( di’) stands in contradistinction from of ( ex) in the former part of the verse; and obviously means, that, though all things derived their existence from God as the fountain and author, yet it was by the agency of the Lord Jesus. This doctrine, that the Son of God was the great agent in the creation of the world, is elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures; see the note at Joh 1:3.

Are all things – The universe; for so the phrase ta panta properly means. No words could better express the idea of the universe than these; and the declaration is therefore explicit that the Lord Jesus created all things. Some explain this of the new creation; as if Paul had said that all things pertaining to our salvation were from him. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious:

(1) It is not the natural signification.

(2) The phrase all things naturally denotes the universe.

(3) The scope of the passage requires us so to understand it. Paul is not speaking of the new creature; but he is speaking of the question whether there is more than one God, one Creator, one Ruler over the wide universe. The pagan said there was; Christians affirmed that there was not. The scope, therefore, of the passage requires us to understand this of the vast material universe; and the obvious declaration here is, that the Lord Jesus was the Creator of all.

And we – We Christians 1Pe 1:21; or, we as people; we have derived our existence by di’ or through him. The expression will apply either to our original creation, or to our hopes of heaven, as being by him; and is equally true respecting both. Probably the idea is, that all that we have, as people and as Christians, our lives and our hopes, are through him and by his agency.

By him – di’ autou. By his agency. Paul had said, in respect to God the Father of all, that we were unto eis him; he here says that in regard to the Lord Jesus, we are by dia Him, or by His agency. The sense is, God is the author, the former of the plan; the Source of being and of hope; and we are to live to Him: but Jesus is the agent by whom all these things are made, and through whom they are conferred on us. Arians and Socinians have made use of this passage to prove that the Son was inferior to God; and the argument is, that the name God is not given to Jesus, but another name implying inferiority; and that the design of Paul was to make a distinction between God and the Lord Jesus. It is not the design of these notes to examine opinions in theology; but in reply to this argument we may observe, briefly:

(1) That those who hold to the divinity of the Lord Jesus do not deny that there is a distinction between him and the Father: they fully admit and maintain it, both in regard to his eternal existence (that is, that there is an eternal distinction of persons in the Godhead) and in regard to his office as mediator.

(2) The term Lord, given here, does not of necessity suppose that he is inferior to God.

(3) The design of the passage supposes that there was equality in some respects. God the Father and the Lord Jesus sustain relations to people that in some sense correspond to the many gods and the many lords that the pagan adored; but they were equal in nature.

(4) The work of creation is expressly in this passage ascribed to the Lord Jesus. But the work of creation cannot be performed by a creature. There can be no delegated God, and no delegated omnipotence, or delegated infinite wisdom and omnipresence. The work of creation implies divinity; or it is impossible to prove that there is a God; and if the Lord Jesus made all things, he must be God.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 6. But to us there is but one God, the Father] Who produced all things, himself uncreated and unoriginated. And we in him, , and we FOR him; all intelligent beings having been created for the purpose of manifesting his glory, by receiving and reflecting his wisdom, goodness, and truth.

And one Lord Jesus] Only one visible Governor of the world and the Church, by whom are all things: who was the Creator, as he is the Upholder of the universe. And we by him, being brought to the knowledge of the true God, by the revelation of Jesus Christ; for it is the only begotten Son alone that can reveal the Father. The gods of whom the apostle speaks were their divinities, or objects of religious worship; the lords were the rulers of the world, such emperors, who were considered next to gods, and some of them were deified. In opposition to those gods he places GOD the Father, the fountain of plenitude and being; and in opposition to the lords he places Jesus Christ, who made and who governs all things. We, as creatures, live in reference, , to him, God the Father, who is the fountain of our being: and, as Christians, we live , by or through him, Jesus Christ; by whom we are bought, enlightened, pardoned, and saved.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Whatever the idolatrous heathens think or believe, to us (who are Christians)

there is but one who is truly and essentially God, ( though indeed there be more than one person in the Deity), the Father, who is the Fountain of the Deity, communicating his Divine nature to the other two persons, and of whom are all things. It is a term which signifieth the primary Cause and Author of all things: we subsist in him, according to that of the apostle, Act 17:28;

In him we live, and move, and have our being; and we are for him, created for his honour and glory, as the phrase may also be translated.

And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. He is the second person in the holy Trinity. It is the observation of a learned author: That though the name of God be often given to Christ, yet no where by Paul where he maketh mention of God the Father; from whence he concludes, that the term of Lord given to Christ, signifieth his pre-eminence above all things, (the Father excepted), according to what the apostle speaks, 1Co 15:27. By this Christ, saith the apostle, are all things: All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made, Joh 1:3; yet the difference of the phrase is observable, to denote to us the order of working in the holy Trinity. All things are of the Father by the Son.

And we by him; and we (saith the apostle) are by the Son created, redeemed, &c.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

6. to usbelievers.

of whomfrom whom asCreator all things derive their existence.

we in himrather, “wefor Him,” or “unto Him.” God the FATHERis the end for whom and for whose glory believers live. In Col1:16 all things are said to be created (not only “by“Christ, but also) “for Him” (CHRIST).So entirely are the Father and Son one (compare Rom 11:36;Heb 2:10).

one Lordcontrastedwith the “many lords” of heathendom (1Co8:5).

by whom (Joh 1:3;Heb 1:2).

we by himas all thingsare “of” the Father by creation, so they (webelievers especially) are restored to Him by the new creation(Col 1:20; Rev 21:5).Also, as all things are by Christ by creation, so they (weespecially) are restored by Him by the new creation.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

But to us there is but one God, the Father,…. In this Christians and Jews agree with the best and wisest philosophers of the Gentiles, that there is but one God; which is clear from the perfections of God, as necessary existence, eternity, infinity, omnipotence, all-sufficiency, goodness, and perfection; from one first cause of all things; from the government of the world; and from the writings of the Old and New Testament: so that to us believers this point is out of all doubt; but who this one God is the Gentiles knew not, and the Jews are very ignorant of; but we Christians know him to be “the Father”; by whom meant either God essentially considered, the one God, Father, Son, and Spirit, called the Father, not in relation to any person in the Godhead, but in relation to the creatures: so this one God, Father, Son, and Spirit, is the Father of spirits, the creator of angels, and the souls of men, the God of all flesh, the Father of all the individuals of human nature, the Father or author of all the mercies and blessings the children of men enjoy. Or else personally considered, and so designs the first person in the Godhead, who is called so in relation to his Son, who is styled the only begotten of the Father: and when he is said to be the one God, it must be understood, not as exclusive of the Son and Spirit; for if the Son stands excluded in this clause from being the one God with the Father, by the same rule of interpretation, the Father, in the next clause must stand excluded from being the one Lord with Christ; but as dominion or lordship belongs to the Father, so deity to the Son, and also to the Spirit.

Of whom are all things; all created beings and things; angels are of him, are created by him, serve and worship him; devils are of him, and under him, and at his control, though they have rebelled against him; all mankind are of him, and are his offspring; the whole universe, the heavens, the earth, and seas, and all that in them are, are of him; all things in nature, providence, grace, and glory, come of him: he is the author of every mercy, temporal and spiritual.

And we in him: or “for him”: as creatures we are not only made by him, but live in him, and are supported in him, and by him, and are created for his glory: though this seems rather to respect what believers are, as new creatures; they are in God; they are interested in him as their covenant God, and in his everlasting and immutable love; they are engraven on his hands, and set as a seal on his heart; they are “into him”, as it may be rendered; they are brought into nearness to him, and communion with him; and are “for him”, are chosen, redeemed, regenerated, and called for the glorifying of his grace, and to show forth his praise.

And one Lord Jesus Christ; so called, not to the exclusion of the Father and Spirit, but in opposition to the lords many before mentioned, and with respect to all his people. Christ is the one Lord of all, as he is God over all, the Creator and Former of all things; and he is so likewise as Mediator, having all power, dominion, and government put into his hands: he is, in a special sense, the one Lord of his people, and that by right of marriage to them; by right of redemption of them; through his being an head unto them, and King of them; and by a voluntary surrender of themselves to him, rejecting all other lords, as sin, Satan, and the world, who have formerly had dominion over them, they acknowledge him to be their one and only Lord:

by whom are all things; in nature; all the created beings of this, or the other world, whether visible or invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, are by him; no creature was made without him, and all by him; and all things in grace, our election, redemption, reconciliation, pardon, justification, and everlasting glory and happiness,

And we by him; we are redeemed by him from sin, Satan, the law, death, and hell; we are by him what we are, as Christians, as believers in him; by him, and from him, we have all the grace and the supplies of it we have; by him we have access to the Father, and fellowship with him; by him we are governed, influenced, protected, and preserved to his kingdom and glory; and by him we are, and shall be, saved with an everlasting salvation.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Yet to us there is one God, the Father (‘ ). B omits ‘ here, but the sense calls for it anyhow in this apodosis, a strong antithesis to the protasis ( even if at least , ).

Of whom ( ). As the source () of the universe ( as in Rom 11:36; Col 1:16) and also our goal is God ( ) as in Ro 11:36 where ‘ is added whereas here ‘ (through whom) and ‘ (through him) point to Jesus Christ as the intermediate agent in creation as in Col 1:15-20; John 1:3. Here Paul calls Jesus

Lord () and not

God (), though he does apply that word to him in Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Col 2:9; Acts 20:28.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) But to us there is but one God. (all hemin eis theos) But to us (there is) one God. This concept is monotheism as opposed to polytheism (many gods). Exo 2:1-2; Eph 4:6.

2) The Father, of whom are all things. (ho pater eks ou ta panta) The Father out of or originating from whom (are) all things. He is the Father of all in the sense of Creator, Mal 2:10; Eze 18:3-4.

3) And we in him. (kai hemeis eis auton) And we (exist) out of Him – live, move, and have our being from Him daily. Act 17:28;

Mat 6:11; Jas 4:13-15; Jas 1:17.

4) And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all (kai eis kurios iesous christos di ou ta panta) And one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things exist. (Joh 1:3; Heb 1:2; Col 1:17-18; 1Ti 2:5.

5) And we by him. (kai hemeis di autou) And we exist and are sustained by Him. Col 2:9-10; Rom 5:10-11; Rom 5:9-10. By and in Him we exist, as new creatures. 2Co 5:17-18.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

6. But to us there is but one God, the Father Though Paul says these things by anticipation, he repeats the excuse made by the Corinthians, in such a way as at the same time to convey instruction. For, from what is more especially peculiar to God, he proves that there is but one God: “Whatever has its origin from what is foreign to itself, is not eternal, and, consequently, is not God. All things have their origin from one Being: he alone, therefore, is God.” Again — “ He is assuredly God who gives existence to all, and from whom all things flow, as from the supreme source; but there is only One, from whom all things flow, and hence there is but one God. ” When he adds — and we in him, ( εἰς αὐτόν,) he means, that we subsist in God, as it was by him that we were once created. For this clause might, indeed, seem to have another signification — that as we have our beginning from him, so we ought to devote our life to him as its end; and it is used in this sense in Rom 11:36. Here, however, it is taken for ἐν αὐτῷ, which is commonly made use of by the Apostles. His meaning, therefore, is, that as we were once created by God, so it is by his power that we are preserved in our present condition. That this is its meaning, is evident from what he affirms respecting Christ immediately afterwards — that we are by him For he designed to ascribe the same operation to the Father and to the Son, adding, however, the distinction which was suitable to the Persons. He says, then, that we subsist in the Father, and that it is by the Son, because the Father is indeed the foundation of all existence; but, as it is by the Son that we are united to him, so he communicates to us through him the reality of existence.

One Lord These things are affirmed respecting Christ relatively, that is, in relationship to the Father. For all things that are God’s are assuredly applicable to Christ, when no mention is made of persons; but as the person of the Father is here brought into comparison with the person of the Son, it is with good reason that the Apostle distinguishes what is peculiar to them.

Now the Son of God, after having been manifested in the flesh, received from the Father dominion and power over all things, that he might reign alone in heaven and on earth, and that the Father might exercise his authority through his hands. For this reason our Lord is spoken of as one. (466) But in respect of dominion being ascribed to him alone, this is not to be taken as meaning that worldly distinctions (467) are abolished. For Paul speaks here of spiritual dominion, while the governments of the world are political; as when he said a little before — there are many that are called lords — (1Co 8:5) — he meant that, not of kings, or of others who excel in rank and dignity, but of idols or demons, to whom foolish men ascribe superiority and rule. While, therefore, our religion acknowledges but one Lord, this is no hindrance in the way of civil governments having many lords, to whom honor and respect are due in that one Lord

(466) “ Pour ceste raison quand il est parle de nostre Seigneur, il est dit que nous n’en auons qu’vn, assauoir Christ;” — “For this reason, when mention is made of our Lord, it is declared that we have only one, namely, Christ.”

(467) “ Les degrez, estats, et gouuernemens du monde;” — “Ranks, conditions, and governments of the world.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(6) But to us.Though this be so, yet for us Christians there exists but one God the Father, from whom alone every created thing has come, and for (not in) whom alone we exist; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are created (Joh. 1:3), and we Christians created spiritually by Him. All creation is of the Father through the Son. All creation is for the Father and likewise for the Son. (See Col. 1:16.) The words we by Him must not be regarded as a repetition of part of the thought of the previous sentence; but as the words by whom are all things express the fact of physical creation, so the words, we by Him, attribute our spiritual re-creation as Christians to the same source. (See Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:10.) This sixth verse then sweeps away completely any pantheistic conception which might have been thought to be in the previous words. Even granting, for argument sake, that such gods or lords do exist, we have but one God, one Lord.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

6. To us Emphatically to us Christians. St. Paul now takes occasion to lay down the positive Christian creed on the subject, cleansing our moral sky of all mythologies, and giving us alone God in heaven and our Lord Christ on earth.

God, the Father Father here used not of his divine paternity of us, but in relation to the Son.

Of whom As himself the unrevealed background of Deity.

One Lord Christ The divine Manifestation on earth of the hidden Infinite in heaven. Lord as being the executive of the divine power and grace immediately upon us, on earth. Idolatry was the unregenerate effort of fallen man to frame an earthly representative of God. Christ is the true living representative, humanizing the divine, and bringing the Infinite into finite sympathy with us. The idol-lord is therefore a false, fabricated, rival to the true Lord. It must be abolished in order that He may stand supreme and alone. God, therefore, is not here so styled God as to exclude Christ from the Godhead, any more than Christ is styled Lord to exclude God from the Lordship. One is distinctly God and the other Lord, yet both are both God and Lord. And St. Paul thus states the true Christian gnosis as abolishing the idol as a nothing in the world.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Co 8:6. But to us there is but one God, &c. One God is exclusive, not of the one Lord, as though he were an inferior Deity, but only of the idols, to which the one God is opposed: to think otherwise would be to destroy the Apostle’s own argument for the unity of God, and make him talk as inconsistently, as if he would prove, that there is none other God but one, because, instead of many, there are only two, one supreme and the other subordinate; and then would give such a reason for this, as overturns the distinction itself, by adding that all those things, which are of the Father, are in their utmost latitude by the Son, as one in operation with him, just as at other times, speaking of the Father, all things are said to be by him. Rom 11:36. Heb 2:10. In the first of these places, the Father is stiled the Lord, (, ) without the article, as Christ is here; but by the same way of arguing, which excludes the Lord Jesus Christ from being God, the Father would be excluded from being Lord: or if the Apostle here alludes to the custom of the heathens, who worshipped one or more sovereign deities by inferior demons, called Baalim or Lords, (see the last note,) then what is said of the one Lord Jesus Christ, may be considered as relating, not so directly to what he is in his original nature, as to his office of mediation with God the Father; while he himself is stiled Lord, and the very same works are ascribed to him as to the Father, to shew what a divine Mediator he is. See Mede, Locke, Guyse, Calamy’s Sermons on the Trinity, p. 25, and 244. Jones’s “Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity,” ch. 1 sect. 3 and Waterland’s Sermons on the Trinity, p. 48-53.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 8:6 . Apodosis: yet have we Christians but one God, the Father , etc. Therefore: . . [1335] The to be supplied after is the simple verb substantive.

] as in 1Co 4:15 .

] might be taken together here as forming one conception , like (Fritzsche, a [1336] Matt. p. 168); it agrees better, however, with the . . which follows, to understand as in apposition to and defining it more precisely. By , and the relative definitions of it which follow, the has its specific character assigned to it, and that in such a way as to make the reader feel, from the relation of the One God to the world, and from his own relation to Him, how the Christian, despite that plurality of gods, comes to rest in the thought of the unity of God, and how idols are with him put out of account altogether. Comp Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 348.

] in the Christian sense, according to the idea of the of Christians. Rom 8:15 ; Gal 3:26 .

] as to primary origin. see on Rom 11:36 .

] i.e. and we Christians are destined to serve His purposes : He is our End. Here again, after the , we have the deviation from the relative construction, common with the apostle from his preference for direct address. Comp on 1Co 7:13 . Bernhardy, p. 304. It is arbitrary to take in such a narrow sense as is given to it by Piscator, Grotius, Rosenmller, al [1339] : for God’s honour ; but positively incorrect to take it for , with Beza, Calvin, and others; or for , with Schulz, Heydenreich, and Pott. Billroth interprets it in Hegelian fashion: “that man should be towards God, should return into Him as his First Cause, not remain for himself .” This has only a seeming likeness to Augustine’s “Fecisti me ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te,” Conf. i. 1. Olshausen, following older expositors (Calovius, Estius, al [1340] ), finds the Trinity here also (comp on Rom 11:36 ), which is obviously wrong, were it only for this reason, that we have neither one subject alone named in this passage (as at least in Rom. loc. cit. ), nor three, but two. [1342] He holds, with Billroth (comp also Neander), that the refers to the agency of the Holy Spirit in bringing all back to its primary origin. [1344]

] does not apply to the new moral creation (Grotius, Stolz, Pott), and consequently cannot include all that is involved in redemption and atonement (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 193), which is clearly against the sense of the preceding ; but it means that Jesus Christ, in His pre-mundane existence, as the Son of God (not as the Ideal Man or the like), as (in John’s phrase, as ), was He through whom [1345] God brought about the creation of the world. see on Col 1:15 ff. Comp Joh 1:3 . Usteri, Lehrbegriff , p. 315 ff.; Rbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 29 ff.; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 85; Lechler, p. 51 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 318. Philo calls the the , ( ). See de Cherub. I. p. 162. In Rom 11:36 , is said of God, and the reference is therefore of a different kind than here.

] is not to be referred to the physical creation (Rckert); for the idea thus elicited would not only be tame and obvious of itself, but also out of keeping with what has previously been stated of God , the second clause in which, . , adds a different, namely, an ethical relation. The reference here is to the new creation of believers (Eph 2:10 ; 2Co 5:17 ; Gal 6:15 ); this is effected by God through Christ , who, as in the physical creation, is the causa medians . Just as we Christians have but one God, the true Creator, whose designs: we serve; so, too, we have but one Lord, the true Mediator , to whom all things owe their being, and we our Christian existence, that which we are as Christians . This “ one God and one Lord ” shuts out the whole heathen gods as such, so far as the Christian consciousness is concerned.

[1335] . . . .

[1336] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1339] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1340] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1342] Hence we find, in some of the later codd. and Fathers, additional clauses respecting the Spirit, namely, , . , and: . . But so early an expositor as Chrysostom remarks expressly that the Spirit is not mentioned here.

[1344] In order to bring out the “ all ” (Rom 11:36 ), Olshausen affirms: “Insomuch as the church is destined to receive all men into it, and insomuch as it exerts a reflex restorative influence even upon the (Rom 8:19 ff.), those who believe are equivalent to things as a whole.” An instance to be taken as a warning of exegetical subjectivity in the interest of dogmatic preconception.

[1345] Not , which holds only of the Father, although could be said of the Son also (comp. Col 1:16 ).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Ver. 6. But to us there is but one God ] Be the gods of the heathen good fellows (saith one), the true God is a jealous God, and will not share his glory with another.

Of whom are all things, and we for him ] So that God is the first cause and the last end of all: which two are the properties of the chief good.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

6. ] Yet (see reff. just given, and ch. 1Co 4:15 ) TO US (emphatic: however that matter may be, we hold) there is ONE GOD, the Father ( answers to in the parallel clause below, and serves to specify what God viz. the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ), of Whom (as their Source of being) are all things, and we unto (i.e. for ) Him (His purposes to serve His will); and one Lord Jesus Christ (notice the opposed to , and to ), by Whom (as Him by whom the Father made the worlds, Joh 1:3 ; Heb 1:2 ) are all things, and we (but here secondly, we as his spiritual people, in the new creation) by Him . The inference from the foregoing is that, per se , the eating of meat offered to idols is a thing indifferent, and therefore allowed. The limitation of this licence now follows.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 8:6 affirms in positive Christian terms, as 1Co 8:4 b stated negatively and retrospectively, the creed of the Cor [1249] believers. The “one God” of O.T. monotheism is “to us one God the Father”. “Of whom are all things, and we for Him:” the universe issues from God, and “we,” His sons in Christ, are destined therein for His use and glory He would reap in “us” His glory, as a father in the children of his house; see, on this latter purpose, Eph 1:5 ; Eph 1:10 ff., Eph 1:18 b , 1Co 3:9 ff.; also 1Pe 2:9 , Jas 1:18 , Joh 17:9 f., etc.; cf. Aug [1250] , “ Fecisti nos ad Te”. In the emphatic there speaks the joyful consciousness of Gentiles called to know and serve the true God; cf. 1Co 12:2 f., Eph 2:11 ff. The “one Lord Jesus Christ” is Mediator, as in 1Ti 2:5 “through whom are all things, and we through Him”; again stands out with high distinction from the dim background of . The contrasted , of the previous clause is replaced by the doubled of this: God is the source of all nature, but the end specifically of redeemed humanity; Christ is equally the Mediator and in this capacity the Lord (1Co 15:24-28 ) of nature and of men. The universe is of God through Christ (Heb 1:2 , Joh 1:3 ): we are for God through Christ (2Co 5:18 , Eph 1:5 , etc.). Col 1:15 ff. unfolds this doctrine of the double Lordship of Christ, basing His redemptional upon His creational headship. It is an exegetical violence to limit the second , as Grotius and Baur have done, to “the ethical new creation”; in 2Co 5:18 the context gives this limitation, which in our passage it excludes. The inferior reading (for : see txtl. note), “ because of whom are all things,” would consist with a lower doctrine of Christ’s Person, representing Him as preconceived object, while with He is pre-existent medium of creation. The full Christology of the 3rd group of the Epp. is latent here. The faith which refers all things to the one God our Father as their spring, and subordinates all things to the one Lord our Redeemer, leaves no smallest spot in the universe for other deities; intelligent Christians justly inferred that the material of the idolothyta was unaffected by the hollow rites of heathen sacrifice.

[1249] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1250] Augustine.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

in = unto. App-104. Compare Rom 11:36.

Lord. App-98.

Jesus Christ. App-98.

by = by means of. App-104. 1Co 8:1. Compare Joh 1:3. Col 1:16. Heb 1:2.

we by Him. Compare Joh 14:6. Rom 5:1. Php 1:1, Php 1:11.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

6.] Yet (see reff. just given, and ch. 1Co 4:15) TO US (emphatic: however that matter may be, we hold) there is ONE GOD, the Father ( answers to in the parallel clause below, and serves to specify what God-viz. the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ), of Whom (as their Source of being) are all things, and we unto (i.e. for) Him (His purposes-to serve His will); and one Lord Jesus Christ (notice the opposed to , and to ), by Whom (as Him by whom the Father made the worlds, Joh 1:3; Heb 1:2) are all things, and we (but here secondly, we as his spiritual people, in the new creation) by Him. The inference from the foregoing is that, per se, the eating of meat offered to idols is a thing indifferent, and therefore allowed. The limitation of this licence now follows.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 8:6. ) to us, believers.- , of whom are all things) Therefore, we have one God.- , all things) by creation.-, we) believers.- , unto Him) He is the end for whom believers live.- , and one) Christ, the object of divine and religious worship. The apostles also, for the purpose of avoiding the appearance of polytheism, more frequently called Christ Lord, than God, when they wrote to the Gentile churches.-, Lord) This appellation comprehends in itself the notion of the Son of God, and therefore also of God, along with the idea of Redeemer.- , by whom) The dominion of Christ is hereby proved; by Him all things are of God.- , by Him) We come by Him, , to the Father.

7. ) We have , knowledge; but others have it not in the same degree.-, some) an antithesis to all, 1Co 8:1. Some, viz. the Jews, holding the idol in abomination; the Greeks regarding it with reverence, 1Co 10:32.- , of the idol) They had this feeling,[65] as if the idol were something; or at least as if the thing offered to the idol were polluted thereby.- , until this hour) when by this time they should have knowledge.-) as: on this depends the distinction.-, is defiled) a suitable expression, by a metaphor derived from flesh.-, food) used indefinitely, 1Co 8:13.-, us) having or not having knowledge.- ) neither as regards pleasing Him in the judgment, nor as regards displeasing Him, [so as to be accounted the worse for it]; , I commend; but the word occupies a middle place between a good and a bad sense, as is evident from the Ep. of Athanasius, , where he makes this periphrasis, .[66] So 1Co 8:10, is used as a word in a middle sense. This is the foundation of lawful power [liberty, 1Co 8:9], ; comp. in the next verse.– -, neither are we the better; nor-are we the worse) because in both cases thanksgiving is retained, Rom 14:6.

[65] Ernesti says, Bibl. th. noviss. T. i., p. 511, that Bengel, along with Heumann, prefers the reading in this verse to the common reading , and approves of it, but without foundation. Certainly Bengels older margin has marked with , the later with ; and the Germ. Vers. has expressly printed .-E. B.

[66] Any natural ejection in the animal functions will not bring us to punishment.

Tisch. prefers with D (A) G Vulg. both Syr. Versions, and fg. Lachm. reads with AB Memph.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 8:6

1Co 8:6

yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things,-In contrast with these false gods, to the Christian, there is one true and living God, the Originator, Creator, and Founder of the universe; hence possessed of all the wisdom, power, and authority that dwell in the universe.

and we unto him;-This is given as an evidence of his nearness to man, for in him we live, and move, and have our being. (Act 17:28). From him all blessings come; by his strength and power we live and are upheld by him daily.

and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,- The all things in this clause must be co-extensive with the all things in the preceding one-that is, the universe. The universe was created through Jesus Christ. The energy of the one God was exercised through the Word, who became flesh, and dwelt among us. (Joh 1:14). Of him it is said: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (Joh 1:1-3). The following passages teach the same thing: Through whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1:2). For in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible,… all things have been created through him, and unto him. (Col 1:16).

and we through him.-Jesus Christ performs the same act of creating in the spiritual world that he did in the material. In this God, the Father, originated and provided the great scheme of redemption. Jesus Christ came into the world. Through his mission; his teaching in precept and example; his suffering, death, burial, his struggle in the grave with the powers of death, and hell (in the grave the battle for mans redemption was fought and the victory won); his resurrection and his ascent to his Father, he created the material for the new spiritual kingdom. The apostles and their fellow disciples constituted this nucleus for the new creation. Christ completed his work and left them with the command: Tarry ye in the city [Jerusalem], until ye be clothed with power from on high. (Luk 24:49). No step could be taken in the procreation of disciples or in the establishment and development of the kingdom of which they constituted the beginning until the Spirit should come to guide them into all the truth.

[The divinity of Christ can no more be denied because the Father is here called the one God, than the dominion of the Father can be denied because the Son is called the one Lord. By this mode of expression it is intimated that Father and Son are one God and one Lord in the unity of the godhead. (Act 17:29; Col 2:9).]

[It is consideration of these great truths that makes idolatry ridiculous, and the eating of food sacrificed to idols a matter of indifference. Such was the conclusion of the Corinthians, and such, but for the weaker brethren, would have been Pauls conclusion.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

one God: 1Co 8:4, Jon 1:9, Mal 2:10, Joh 10:30, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:10, Joh 17:3, Joh 20:17, Eph 1:3, Eph 3:14, Eph 4:6, 1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:3

of whom: Act 17:28, Rom 11:36, Eph 4:6

and we: Joh 14:20, Joh 17:21-23

in him: or, for him, 1Co 6:13

and one: 1Co 12:3, Mat 11:27, Mat 28:18, Joh 5:20-29, Joh 13:13, Joh 17:23, Act 2:36, Act 5:31, Eph 1:20-23, Eph 4:5, Phi 2:9-11, Col 1:16, Col 1:17, 1Ti 2:5, 1Ti 2:6, 1Pe 1:21, Rev 1:18

and we by: Joh 1:3, Col 1:6, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:3

Reciprocal: Gen 1:1 – God Exo 20:3 – General Psa 81:9 – There shall 1Co 1:2 – our Lord 1Co 3:23 – and Christ 1Co 11:12 – but 1Co 12:5 – but 2Co 4:5 – Christ 2Co 5:18 – all Eph 2:18 – the Phi 2:11 – is Lord Col 1:12 – the Father Col 2:18 – worshipping 1Ti 4:1 – and doctrines Heb 2:10 – for Jam 2:19 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 8:6. Repeating the idea just set forth, the apostle adds some truths about the God who created all these things which the heathen were ignorantly worshiping.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Apologists Bible Commentary

1 Corinthians 8

6″yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

C o m m e n t a r yPaul draws a contrast between false deities and the Father and Son. Whereas the pagan deities are false, there is to us one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. He maintains a distinction of Personality between the Father and Son by assigning a different title of Deity to each, while at the same time distinguishing both from all creation [TA PANTA], each in a different way. Whereas the Father is portrayed as the source of all things, Jesus Christ, the Logos, operates in an intermediate role in both the original creation (John 1:3) as well as the new creation. Jesus said that, no man comes to the Father, but by me (John 14:6), thereby portraying himself as the intermediate agency of true Deity. Hence, because the many gods and lords have no existence as true Deity, the eating of meats which had been sacrificed to idols will not adversely affect the Christian. However, not all Christians have the same knowledge, so some might be stumbled by the tainted meat, and those who have knowledge should put love first and never cause their brothers to stumble, it would be a sin to do so. (Ray Goldsmith ) A number of scholars and commentators have persuasively argued that in this verse, Paul is recasting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in Christian terms. The Shema is the great monotheistic declaration: “Hear O Israel! YHWH, our God, YHWH is one.” In the LXX, this becomes AKOUE ISRAL KURIOS hO THEOS hEMN KURIOS EIS ESTIN (“Hear Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one”). YHWH becomes KURIOS (“Lord”) in the LXX. The similarity in language between this verse and 1 Corinthians 8:6 becomes apparent when we set them side by side in the Greek (Deuteronomy 6:4 is on the right; 1 Corinthians 8:6 on the left): As Richard Bauckham notes: Paul has reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema…but Paul has rearranged the words in such as way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema speaks, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing not christological monotheism but outright ditheism (Bauckham , p. 38). Paul has redefined the “God” of the Shema as “One God, the Father,” and the “Lord” of the Shema as “One Lord, Jesus Christ.” As the context is that of religious devotion (whether eating food sacrificed to idols was acceptable or not) and the distinction between pagan deities on the one hand, and God the Father and Jesus Christ on the other, Paul’s appeal to the Shema as a proclamation of how the God of Israel was unique is understandable. What was unprecedented was his inclusion of Jesus in the formula – again it must be stressed in the context of devotion – which could only mean that the Lord God (YHWH) was now to be perceived as including both the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Other scholars who have written on Paul’s reliance on the Shema in this verse include: F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians; D. R. de Lacey, “‘One Lord’ in Pauline Christology,” in H. H. Rowden, ed., Christ the Lord; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology (though Dunn draws a somewhat different conclusion); L. Hurtado, One God, One Lord and At the Origin of Christian Worship; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant and What St. Paul Really Said; D. A. Hagner, “Paul’s Christology and Jewish Monotheism” in M. Shuster and R. Muller ed., Perspectives on Christology; N. Richardson, Paul’s Language about God; B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage; P. Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University]; W. A. Elwell, “The Deity of Christ in the Writings of Paul,” in Hawthorne, ed., Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation.

G r a m m a ti c a l A n a l y s i sall hmin eiV qeos`o pathr, ex ou ta panta kai`hmeiV eiV auton, kai eiV kurioV IhsouV CristoV, di ou ta panta kai`hmeiV di autou ALL MIN EIS THEOS hO PATR, EX OU TA PANTA KAI hMEIS EIS AUTON, KAI EIS KURIOS ISOUS XRISTOS, DI OU TA PANTA KAI hMEIS DI AUTOU But to us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him. ALLA: This conjunction sets up a strong contrast with the LEGOMENOI THEOI (so-called gods) of the preceding verse. Both the Father and Son form the compound subject (nominatives) as contrasted over against the false deities of paganism. Note the triple contrast Paul makes. First he contrasts the Father and Son against the so-called gods with LEGOMENOI and ALLA MIN. Then he separates both the Father and Son from all things [PANTA] by priority of existence, but note the different prepositional relationship between the Father and all things (out of EK), and between the Lord Jesus and all things (through DIA), thereby Paul maintains a personal distinction within the Godhead. (Ray Goldsmith ) For though there be (kai gar eiper eisi). Literally, ‘For even if indeed there are’ (a concessive clause, condition of the first class, assumed to be true for argument’s sake). Called gods (legomenoi theoi). So-called gods, reputed gods. Paul denied really the existence of these so-called gods and held that those who worshipped idols (non-entities) in reality worshipped demons or evil spirits, agents of Satan (1 Cor. 10:19-21). (RWP )

O t h e r V i e w s C o n s i d e r e dJehovah’s Witnesses 1st Corinthians 8:4-6 A Response to Greg Stafford by Ray Goldsmith Jehovah’s Witnesses have often cited this passage to prove that Jesus can not be God. Since the passage reads that for ‘us’ there is ‘one God, the Father’, and since Jesus is not the Father, he cannot be Godso runs the reasoning. Yet such reasoning is superficial. Robert Bowman Jr., responds as follows: 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between ‘one God, the Father,’ and ‘one Lord, Jesus Christ.’ The JWs conclude from this verse that since the Father is the ‘one God,’ Jesus cannot be God. But by that reasoning, since Jesus is the ‘one Lord,’ The Father cannot be Lord! (Bowman, Trinity , p. 73). In view of the above it is not surprising that Witnesses would look for a better way to present the argument. The object here is to save their case by finding a way to remain consistent while denying on the basis of this passage that Jesus can be God. So in what way can Witnesses believe that God the Father cannot be the one Lord? Greg Stafford responds: First of all, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that since the Father is the ‘one God,’ that Jesus cannot be ‘God’ or ‘a god’ to some degree. Jehovah Witnesses do believe that the description of the Father as the ‘one God’ in this verse shows that Jesus cannot be the ‘one God.’ Simply put, the ‘one God’ is one person, the Father. Similarly, the Father cannot be the ‘one Lord’ of the Christian Congregation, for He had given His Son this position. Of course He can still be considered ‘Lord’in respect to His own sovereignty, but He has relinquished a particular Lordship to His Son, who will exercise this authority until death is no more (Ac 2:36; 1 Co 15:28) (Stafford , p. 200) Mr. Stafford’s first point is neither here nor there, for Trinitarians do not accuse the Watchtower of denying that Jesus can be theos to some degree, nor was this Bowman’s point. Mr. Stafford’s further point, however, that the one God is one person, the Father,” needs further consideration, for it appears to be based on a premise which remains unproven throughout his discussion. Mr. Stafford’s reasoning takes for granted that the infinite God can be held hostage to a finite limitation. Thus he begins with the premise that one being equals only one person; he then applies this to his understanding of the passage, then draws the conclusion that since the Father is identified as the one God, only He could be that one God. Yet he realizes that he must find a way to allow Jesus Christ to be the one Lord without that being applicable to the Father or any other Person. Exclusivity on the one side demands the same on the other. At the same time he knows that Scripture reveals the Father as Lord too, both despotes and kyrios (concerning Sovereign Lord [despotes] see my discussion on many gods and many lords, below), so he adds a qualifier that does not appear in the text. Jesus is the one Lord of the Christian Congregation. He then goes on to deny that the Father is such, saying that the Father relinquished this to the Son. We will consider Greg’s qualifier shortly, but first we need to consider the beginning premise that the infinite God can be held hostage to the finite limitation that one being equals only one person. When does only really mean only? Jehovah’s Witnesses often appeal to the language in John 17:3 to justify this premise, where Jesus calls his Father the only true God,” and at first glance it may appear that they have a point, but all is not what it seems. Similar language appears in the New World Translation at Jude 4, where Jesus Christ is said to be our only Owner and Lord.” Here the same adjective only appears in the same grammatical position (attributive). Yet immediately the Witnesses have a problem restricting the Owner and Lord to the one Person, Jesus Christ, for they know that Scripture elsewhere clearly identifies a Person other than Jesus as our Owner and Lord. How can Jesus be our only Owner and Lord if the Father is also our Owner and Lord? Or, how can the Father be our Owner and Lord if Jesus is our only Owner and Lord? When does only really mean only?” The same logic they apply to John 17:3 would deny that any other person than Jesus Christ could be our Owner and Lord according to Jude 4 (NWT). Hence, Jude 4 has become a stumbling block to Jehovah’s Witnesses because they cannot apply the same exegetical principles to it that they require in John 17:3. As noted above, Stafford adds a qualifying phrase to the one Lord in 1st Corinthians 8: of the Christian Congregation, and some Witnesses, seemingly influenced by Greg’s qualifier, have carried it over to the expression our only Owner and Lord in Jude 4 (such was the argument of “Student of the Bible,” an independent Witness apologists I debated on several occasions in a Trinity discussion forum on the Internet). This is apparently an attempt to navigate the obvious problem of explaining how more than one Person could be our Owner and Lord,” when Jude 4 says plainly that one Person, Jesus Christ, is our only Owner and Lord. Thus Witnesses offer up the explanation by adding the qualifier, that Jesus is indeed our only Owner and Lord of the Christian Congregation,” and thereby denying that the Father is the Owner and Lord of the Christian Congregation. Can this explanation survive the scrutiny of Scripture? Let’s consider a few examples from the NWT: For all that, the solid foundation of God stays standing, having this seal: ‘Jehovah knows those who belong to him,’ and: Let everyone naming the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.’If, therefore, anyone keeps clear of the latter ones, he will be a vessel for an honorable purpose, sanctified , useful to his owner, prepared for every good work.but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, along with those who call upon the Lord out of a clean heart (2nd Timothy 2:19-22 NWT, emphasis added). And another: …if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation? (1st Timothy 3:5 NWT, emphasis added). These verses pose an immediate problem for any Jehovah’s Witness who has adopted Mr. Stafford’s qualifier and has thus denied that the Father is the Owner and Lord of the Christian Congregation. The NWT translates kyrios as Jehovah, whom they claim is only the Father. So we see that the Father has not relinquished his Lordship or Ownership of the Christian Congregation. The congregation still belongs to him and it names the name of Jehovah. He is their Lord. It is called God’s congregation. What does the WT itself say about Jehovah and his congregation? And, belonging to Jehovah as it does, it is appropriately referred to as ‘the congregation of God.’-Ac 20:28; Ga 1:13 (Insight Vol. #1, pages 497-498, emphasis added). He is also appropriately described as ‘the true Lord’ (Isa 1:24) It is at his direction that people are gathered, or harvested, for life. So petitions for more workers to assist in the harvest must be made to him as the ‘Master [Lord] of the harvest.’ -Mt 9:37, 38; see NW appendix, pp. 1566-1568. (Insight Vol. #2, page 265, emphasis added) The Watchtower clearly teaches that the Congregation belongs to Jehovah. He is appropriately described as the true Lord. It’s at his direction that people are gathered and harvested for life, and petitions for more workers to assist must be made to him as the Master [Lord] of the harvest. Thus even the Watchtower Society agrees that the Father has not relinquished his Ownership and Lordship of the Christian Congregation! In addition, one would guess that if Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Father has relinquished his Lordship and Ownership of the Christian Congregation, they should have no qualms about praying directly to Jesus as their only Owner and Lord. Yet note what Stafford says about prayer to Jesus: When Jesus was on earth he left Christians a model of how to pray. In that model Jesus revealed the proper object of prayer, saying, ‘You must pray [proseuchomai], then, this way: Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (Matt 6:9) (Stafford , pp. 585-586, emphasis added). Now it is truly remarkable that according to Mr. Stafford the Father has relinquished his Lordship of the Christian Congregation, yet remains as the proper object of prayer,” and the one to whom petitions must be made,” as the Master [Lord] of the Harvest! Yet the problem only gets worse for Mr. Stafford’s argument. Note the following: and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matt. 16:18 NWT, emphasis added). If it’s God’s congregation,” and Jesus is not God, how can He call it my congregation?” How can its members belong to Jehovah if Jesus is the only Owner? Yet if Jesus is the only Owner and Lord,” and this requires exclusivity, as Mr. Stafford says at 1st Corinthians. 8:6, how can it be called God’s congregation,” especially if we’re to believe that God has relinquished his Lordship and Ownership over it? Mr. Stafford’s apologetic, though an interesting attempt to deflect the implications of Paul’s language, does not harmonize with other Scriptures, nor even with Watchtower teaching. The attempt to restrict the one Lord of 1st Corinthians. 8:6 to Christ’s role as mediator with regard to the Christian Congregation fails to carry conviction, for Christ has operated in the role of an intermediate, not only in regard to the new Creation, but also in regard to the original creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). Yet because the Logos was the intermediary of the original creation did not mean that the Father relinquished his own Creatorship, did it? Of course not. In fact Jehovah Witnesses would argue that the Father was the only Creator. The same problem crops up with regard to the judgment of all creation. We read in John 5:22 that the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son.” So, by using Mr. Stafford’s reasoning should we conclude that the Father relinquished the judging to the Son and is therefore not the Judge?” The answer should be exceedingly obvious, of course not! In fact we are even told that the reason all judging was committed to the Son is in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” This clearly illustrates how superficial it is to assume that because Jesus is the one Lord in 1st Corinthians. 8:6 that the Father can’t likewise be the one Lord.” He certainly can, just as he can be the Judge of all creation even though he had relinquished all judging to the Son. And Jesus says that the reason we must do so is, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” Thus, equal honor must be ascribed the titles “Lord” and “God” (another word for “title” is “honorific,” a title ascribing honor to someone). Mr. Stafford argues that “Lord” is a lesser title (see below), but even if is, we must ascribe equal honor to the one who bears it, and thus it must hold Him equal to God in our devotion. Finally, in Matthew 28:18 Jesus said all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” Does this mean that the Father relinquished his own Authority in heaven and on earth because it had been given to Jesus? The answer should be obvious again: No he did not! So, let’s review the evidence from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own bible: First Jehovah knows those who belong to him, they name the name of Jehovah and call on the Lord. The Congregation is God’s, and the Watchtower says, belonging to Jehovah as it does, it’s appropriately referred to as such. And petitions for more workers to assist in the harvest must be made to the true Lord, Jehovah, as the Master [Lord] of the harvest. Jehovah is still the Judge, even though all judging has been relinquished to the Son. And furthermore, the Father remains as the proper object of prayer. So, we see that Mr. Stafford’s apologetic offered for 1st Corinthians 8:6 has numerous problems. To say that the Father can still be considered Lord with respect to his own Sovereignty is a distinction without a difference, for what is Sovereignty if it does not include Ownership? The truth is that in perfect accord with God’s plan, Jesus was exalted and made Lord, for all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth, not just over the Christian Congregation. But this did not mean that the Father relinquished his own Lordship or Ownership of God’s Congregation any more than he relinquished his Judgeship because he committed all judging to the Son! He still owns the Congregation and its members belong to him and call on his name. Many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ Mr. Stafford suggests an interesting relationship between the gods many and lords many of 1st Corinthians. 8:5. He points out that within paganism the lords were considered as secondary deities in relationship to the gods. He then points to the contrast with the Father and Jesus Christ, thus suggesting that Jesus should be regarded as a secondary and lesser deity as compared with the Father (see Stafford , p. 201). We may first note that Mr. Stafford provides no evidence from first Century sources supporting his contention that lord was a title for secondary, intermediary deities in the Corinthian milieu. He does cite two scholars, Robert Grant and Frederick Godet, but citing scholars merely proves that these scholars held this view (which is itself a problematic assertion, as we shall see below), not that the view is correct. Why did the scholars hold this view? What evidence did they consider? Interestingly, neither Grant nor Godet provide primary evidence supporting “lord” as a title for a lesser deity. In fact, when considered in context, both scholars actually argue that the role of Christ in creation is contrasted with the role of the secondary deities, not their alleged inferior nature. In the quote Mr. Stafford provides, Grant says, the work of the Lord Christ is like that of the various demiurgic gods (Grant , p. 112, emphasis added). Grant argues, not always convincingly, that Paul is using language and categories of thought borrowed from Middle Platonism, but Grant emphasizes that these categories are not the source of Pauline theology or of later creeds: We expect to find not the source of Christian theological statements but environments in which Christian statements might be acceptable because not unfamiliar (IBID , p. 114). I am not entirely persuaded by Grant’s arguments, for while Paul was indeed the apostle to the Gentiles, he was also a Pharisee of Pharisees, and his language and theology is far more influenced by Jewish thought than pagan, as has been demonstrated by the majority of Pauline scholars writing today (see, for example, N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said; F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology; Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest; J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle [I don’t agree with all of Dunn’s new perspective on Paul, but his work underlines Paul’s theological foundations in Judaism]). Nevertheless, Grant stresses that when Paul contrasts Christ as the one Lord with the mediating Demiurge, this is in terms of role and not ontology: From the Pauline epistles we can reconstruct something like the statements of the future creeds concerning the nature and mission of Christ. The hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 Galatians 4:4. 2 Cor. 8:9. These statements use different metaphors to convey a basic notion of the divine condescension (IBID , pp. 164-165). He further notes: The Nicene Creedlays emphasis on the one God and the one Lord as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but now not so much against polytheism as against various heresies (IBID , p. 168, emphasis in original). Godet writes that Paul and John: both emphasize the subordination of the Son in the unity of the Divine life (Godet , p. 418). He compares 1 Corinthians 8:5 with John 17:3 : In the two passages, the personal distinction between God and Christ is strongly emphasized, though the community of nature between the two appears from this very distinction, and from all the rest of the books where these sayings are contained (IBID ). Thus, even as Mr. Stafford’s own authorities demonstrate, Paul does not say that the many lords of the pagans were secondary or lesser deities by nature relative to the supreme gods, nor does he teach that the one Lord is inferior by nature to the one God. The contrast is in terms of the Son’s mediatorial role, specifically in Creation. Trinitarians embrace the distinction of role and authority delineated in this passage, but not the distinction in ontological nature suggested – but not proven – by Mr. Stafford. Nor, as we have seen, is the term Lord restricted to the Christian Congregation. The terms the one God and the one Lord are used in a context of worship and honor. Why was all judgment relinquished to the Son? Jesus says in John. 5:23 : so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. And as we’ve seen above, Jesus is not only identified as the one Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but also as our only Owner and Lord in Jude 4. The word translated Owner is despotes, an old word for ‘absolute master’ (RWP , p.160). This is applied to God in Acts 4:24 and translated Sovereign Lord in the NWT. Some Witnesses may try to escape the problem in Jude 4 by pointing to the textual uncertainty, but the attempt is futile for the witness, for note what Mr. Stafford himself says about this passage: This is not to say that such constructions cannot describe one person with two nouns, for, clearly, in the case of 1 Peter 1:11, 2:20, 3:18 and Jude 4, they do (Stafford , page 409, emphasis added). So, Mr. Stafford agrees with the anointed witnesses of Jehovah who made up the NWT Translation Committee that clearly this passage describes one Person, Jesus Christ, with two nouns. And the Committee agreed with Dr. Bruce Metzger that despite many occasional variant readings, the wording of the text has strong manuscript support, (Metzger , p. 657). Let’s return to Mr. Stafford’s argument. He says that gods were superior divine beings in paganism, while lords were lesser deities. He then argues that the contrast Paul is making is between the “gods” and one true God, the Father; and between the “lords” and the one true lesser, intermediary Lord, Jesus Christ. As I have demonstrated, Mr. Stafford has not established his point regarding the relative ontological distinction between “gods” and “lords” in Corinthian paganism. Moreover, there is evidence to the contrary Mr. Stafford does not address: The formula ho kyrios kai ho theos hemon (Rev. 4:11, cf. Jn. 20:28), our Lord and our God, is reminiscent of the title adopted by Domitian (cf. CL 4). (NIDNTT , Vol. #2, page 514) Here both terms are applied to the same false god (a deified ruler)! Josephus, writing about the same time as Paul, tells us that the Jews referred to God alone by the divine title “the only Lord and Master,” and thus refused to recite the Roman oath of loyalty, “Caesar is Lord.” (Josephus, Jewish War, 7). Josephus uses the Greek despots instead of kurios, but the two terms were used more or less synonymously as titles for God (cf., The Martydom of Polycarp 8.2, where the Roman oath is rendered kurios kaisar; compare Josephus’ de monon…despotn with Jude 4, ton monon despotn). The WT Society identifies the many lords as false deities: LORD. The Greek and Hebrew words rendered ‘lord’ (or such related terms as ‘sir’, ‘owner’ ‘master’) are used with reference to Jehovah God (Eze 3:11), Jesus Christ (Mt 7:21), one of the elders seen by John in vision (Re 7:13, 14), angels (Ge 19:1,2; Da 12:8), men (1 Sa 25:24; Ac 16:16, 19:30), and false deities (1 Co 8:5) (Insight Vol. #2, page 265, emphasis added). So, to carry the analogy over to the Father and Son, we should regard them both as true deity (biblical monotheism) in full contrast to the false deities of the pagans. Mr. Stafford himself admits that both the Father and Son are contrasted against the false deities (gods and lords), yet he only wants to make the Father true Deity, and not Jesus. Can the reader see the inconsistency here? Further, even Trinitarians recognize that Christ is lesser in a positional sense in perfect accord with God’s arrangement! But continuing to follow Mr. Stafford’s analogy, we may note that just as the Father is contrasted against the gods many and is therefore the one God,” so Jesus is contrasted against the lords many and is therefore the one Lord.” Yet again, just as the Father is contrasted against the many false gods,” and is therefore the one true God,” so likewise Jesus is contrasted against the many false lords (false deities, says the WT), and is therefore the one true Lord.” But the Witnesses run into a snag at this point. Why? Because according to the WT Society, the true Lord is Jehovah! (Insight Vol. #2, page 265; WT Reference Bible, Appendix 1J, page 1569). Right here is where the Witness position is revealed to be built on a foundation of sand, for they must reason that even though both the Father and Son were contrasted against the false deities of paganism, only the Father is to be regarded as true Deity. On one side of the contrast both the gods and lords are false deities, but on the other side, only the Father and not the Son can be regarded as true Deity, so they say. Thus the inconsistency stands out in bold relief. Whereas the Orthodox position remains consistent by recognizing that Paul contrasted both the Father and Son against the false deities, so we rightly regard them both as true Deity in agreement with the contrast! So we see the fallacy of the Witness assumption that the infinite God can be held hostage to the finite limitation that one being can only be one Person. To the contrary, biblical monotheism means that the one God is a plurality of Persons, as indicated even in the very first chapter of the Bible (Genesis 1:26-27us makeour image). Thus we have a plural maker who is God (cf., Hebrews 3:4: “the maker of all things is God”). And since Jehovah’s Witnesses will not deny the Holy Spirit’s participation in Genesis 1:26, we find the same plural maker being presented as the single Authority in whose name believers should be baptized (Matthew 28:19). Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear in 1st Corinthians 8:4-6 that both the Father and Son were placed in complete contrast to the false deities of paganism. It is also clear that we should honor the Son just as we honor the Father (John 5:23 ). Therefore both should be regarded as true Deity. And it is abundantly clear throughout Scripture that the Father did not relinquish his Lordship or Ownership of the Christian Congregation. Yet the Bible says that Jesus is also our only Owner and Lord, the one [true] Lord in contrast to the false deities of paganism. (Jude 4; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6) Addendum: Jesus as mediator Mr. Stafford cites Robert Bowman’s response to the WT’s brochure Should You Believe in the Trinity? (Stafford , 202) Bowman states: ‘1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is the one mediator between God and men (NWT), and from this statement the JW booklet concludes that Jesus cannot be God, because by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation (p. 16). But by this reasoning Jesus cannot be a man, either; yet this very text says that he is a man! Mr. Stafford then responds: A more complete quotation of 1 Timothy will prove illuminating: ‘For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (NIV, emphasis added). He then goes on to emphasize the positional distinction of the three parties, the one God, the one Mediator, and men, saying that this should lead us to see that the proper conclusion is Jesus cannot be the ‘men’ (those for whom he mediates), but he was ‘a man’, nor can he be the ‘one God,’ but he can be and is ‘a god. However, in putting the emphasis on positional distinction, Greg misses the true import of the passage. The anarthrous anthropos (man) places a particular emphasis on the fact that he identifies with humanity. So since he identifies truly by nature with one side (men, humanity), it is only consistent that he also identifies truly by nature with the other side (God). After all, if he doesn’t need to be truly God to be a proper mediator, he doesn’t need to be truly human either. Yet why did he have to come to earth and spend 30 some years in a human body? Mr. Stafford does not deal with this question, but he should. The answer is so that he could truly sympathize with the human side and thus properly mediate for them knowing what it’s like to actually be human. Likewise, then, on the other side. Jesus was already truly God (not the Father), and as a result of his human experience he could then truly mediate for both sides, knowing what it’s like to be both. In other words, he could truly bridge the gap. Mr. Stafford’s classification of Christ as a god and his attempt to correspond that with his being a man fails to make the grade. To be consistent, since Christ identifies truly by nature with the one side (men) as truly human, he should also identify truly by nature with the other side (God) as truly God. But Mr. Stafford’s apologetic stops short of this. He has Christ identifying truly by nature with the one side (men) but not the other (God). At this point it should be noted that Greg places Paul’s reference to Christ’s being a man into the past tense was a man. His motivation for this seems obvious. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses he wishes to maintain the WT’s denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ. They teach that after the resurrection Jesus was no longer a man, but his human body was disposed of in some fashion by Jehovah. Hence, any implication that Christ is still a man after the resurrection (even a glorified one!) must be avoided. But the attempt to take this as only an historical reference is quite arbitrary and constitutes a violent removal of the term from its contextual setting. For example, when Paul says heis gar theos, Greg agrees that this should be taken in the present tense (for there is one God), and when Paul further says heis kai mesites Greg agrees again that this should be taken in the present tense (there is also one Mediator), but when Paul goes on to identify this one Mediator as anthropos Christos Iesous, suddenly Greg departs from the status quo, and arbitrarily rips it from its present tense perspective as he takes the rest of the versetaking it as only an historical reference to his earthly existence. But the time frame of Christ’s human existence makes little difference to the argument at hand. The bottom line is that Paul emphasizes that by becoming truly human, Christ identifies truly by nature with that side (men), having become truly human himself. Likewise, then on the other side. He had existed as truly God (not the Father) from all eternity, and as a result of his human experience he could then mediate for both sides, knowing firsthand what it’s like to be both! Therefore Greg’s use of the indefinite article and a small case g (a god) reveals his inconsistency. Whereas a man would suggest that he was truly human, a god would deny that he was truly God. The mistake in the premise shows up in his conclusion. What is the premise? He takes for granted that the infinite God can be held hostage to the finite premise that one Being can only be a single Person, he applies this to the infinite God, and this leads him to classify Christ inconsistently as a god, thereby denying that he truly identifies with the one side as he does with the other. Thus we see how the Witness apologetic breaks down in inconsistency. WT theology can not allow Christ to identify truly by nature with both sides in order to bridge the gap between them. They end up with a bridge broken at the farther end. The Witness assumption that positional and personal distinction requires ontological inequality is manifestly erroneous. The use of the term one God does not tell us that ultimately God is one Person, rather, as we’ve seen, the WT Society and Mr. Stafford take this for granted. The same context refers to our Savior, God two verses earlier (1st Timothy 2:3). This is interesting in light of the fact that as early as the first chapter of the Bible God is revealed to be a plurality of Persons [us make our image]. Even the WT Society agrees that Genesis1:26 refers to a plurality of Persons, although they seem confused about the Speaker. Note: It was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness’ (Gen 1:26).’ (Insight Vol. #1, page 527, Vl. #2, page 52, emphasis added) Reasonably, in the majority of cases God spoke through the Word. He likely did so in Eden, for on two of the three occasions where mention is made of God’s speaking there the record specifically shows someone was with him, undoubtedly his Son (Gen 1:26-30; 2:16, 17; 3:8-19, 22). (Insight Vol. #2, page 53, emphasis added) The Society does not say whether the Son spoke to himself, or the Father spoke to the Son through the Son (though apparently this is what they mean). Yet the passage makes it plain that man had a plural maker, and this plural maker is identified as God. Consistent with this, the inspired Bible writer tells us that Jesus claimed equality of nature with God (John 5:18). This infuriated the Jews back then, for they did not believe him. It affects Jehovah’s Witnesses the same way today, for they deny that he even made the claim. Witnesses try to escape the force of John 5:18 by saying that John was merely setting forth the erroneous perception of the Jews. But a few verses later John reveals that all judging was committed to the Son so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father (John 5:22-23). This cannot be explained away as the erroneous perception of the Jews, for Jesus is speaking plainly. Hence, what he says in 5:23 backs up to the hilt what John says he claimed in 5:18 (equality with God). Note how the famous Bible translator Edgar Goodspeed rendered John 5:23: so that all men may honor the Son just as much as they honor the Father. (emphasis added) So we see that although they are Personally distinct, they are ontologically equal, and the one should be honored no less than the other. Jesus as the one Lord Mr. Stafford now returns to his discussion of 1st Cor. 8, saying: even if the distinction articulated above between the ‘many gods and many lords’ of the pagans and the ‘one God’ and ‘one Lord’ of Christians was not implied in the context, the argument given by Bowman would still be untenable. The fact is that when kyrios is applied to Jesus in the New Testament it has a much different connotation than when applied to the Father. One reason for this, which we noted earlier, is because the Father ‘made’ Jesus ‘Lord’, and has ‘exalted him’ to his lofty position. (Ac 2:36; Php 2:9) The Father is not Lord because of someone else. References to Jesus as ‘Lord’ must be read with this understanding in mind.(Stafford 203). Yet as I’ve already shown, even were such a distinction implied in this context, the situation would still be untenable for the witnesses. Why? Because both the Father and Son were contrasted against the false deities. As shown earlier, the WT Society identifies the many lords as false deities, so, following Greg’s analogy, we should regard Christ as true Deity in agreement with the contrast, just as we would regard the Father as true Deity in agreement with the same contrast. But the WT’s theology will not allow the Witnesses to be consistent here. Further, Mr. Stafford’s point about the term kyrios having a different connotation when applied to Jesus, and his further point about Jesus being made Lord by someone else, merely transforms the obvious into a discovery (for him). All sides agree that they are different Persons, and so it stands to reason that they would have different roles. One might argue that since only Jesus died on the cross that the Father was made Savior because of someone else. Yet even though only Jesus died on the cross, does this fact make the Father any less our Savior? Do we owe him any less honor because of it? In fact the Scripture makes it plain that God is our ONLY Savior: Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no one else. 23 By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return- that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear(Isaiah 45:22-23 NWT) emphasis added The above could not be more clear. God is our only Savior and there is no one else. Yet the Witnesses step up to tell us that Christ is someone else, and he’s our Savior too! Note what God says: to me every knee will bend down.., yet we discover in Philippians 2:10 that the me includes Jesus whom the Witnesses say is another Saviorbut as we’ve seen, God declared in plain language that there is no other. So no matter what the WT theology requires, we really don’t have another Savior in Jesus; rather they are the one and only Savior. Witnesses are afraid to admit this because they know it will lead to the conclusion that they are also the one and only God. But returning to Mr. Stafford’s point, because only Jesus died on the cross, does the term Savior have a different connotation when applied to him than when applied to the Father, different enough to justify honoring the Father any less than the Son, or the Son any less than the Father? Of course not! In fact we see how the Father is honored when the Son receives equal honor with him (Philippians 2:10-11). Interestingly Mr. Stafford acknowledges that Jesus has complete authority over God’s people (Stafford , 204). He says: Indeed, he is ‘our only Owner and Lord’ (Jude 4; compare Joh 17:6). But he fails to explain how the one Person, Jesus, could be our only Owner and Lord when the Scripture makes it plain that the Father did not relinquish his Ownership or Lordship but retains them, as already shown. Trinitarians have an easy answer for this; they are the one Owner and Lord just as they are the one Savior. A simple reading of Isaiah 45:22 makes is very clear that Jehovah is the only Savior and there is no one else, and Jehovah never lies. Therefore, as our Savior, we should honor Christ as Jehovah just as we would the Father! There are only two options available here. Either we regard Christ as another Savior who is someone else (WT option), or we take Jehovah as including the Son (Orthodox). In harmony with Isaiah 45:22 and many other passages, the latter option is clearly the most reasonable. So yes they are distinct Persons with different roles, but the Bible teaches us that we should not use that as an excuse to honor or value the one any less than the other (John 5:23). They are ultimately the one God and Lord, our only Owner and Savior, the Jehovah who was alone in the doing of the things mentioned in Isaiah 44:24, and the plural maker called God in Genesis 1:26-27so Paul places them in utter contrast to the false deities of paganism (1St Corinthians 8:4-6).

Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary

1Co 8:6. yet to us (Christians) there is one God, the Father, of whom are all thingsas their primal Source, and we unto himas their last End; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all thingsas the immediate Agent in their production, and we through him.[1]

[1] The use of the preposition through, of Christs agency, has been urged as shewing that the apostle viewed Him as a mere subordinate instrument of God in the production of all things. But even in classical Greekand most certainly in the Greek of the New Testamentthis preposition is used where immediate agency is intended; it being left to the context or the subject itself to determine whether immediate or subordinate agency is intended (see Winer, 47; Jelf, 627; and Fritzsche, ad Rom. i. 5, p. 15). In Rom 11:36, it is said of God, in the most absolute sense, through whom are all things; and in this very Epistle, God is faithful, through whom ye were called (Rom 1:9). It is not that this preposition differs nothing from those which properly express primary causation, but merely that it is often used in place of suchand no doubt with a shade of meaning not easily conveyed in English.

Note.This statement embodies a profound truth, which however only close study of it reveals. It might have sufficed for the apostles purpose to sayin opposition to the polytheism that reigned at CorinthTo us Christians there is no divinity, and no object of worship, save the one living and true God. But instead of this, he breaks his statement into two distinct propositions, expressing two marked contrasts between Christianity and heathenism. First, by the one God, of us Christians, we mean The Father, in opposition to the gods many of the heathen. Next, in opposition to the lords many of the heathen, to us there is one Lord, (even) Jesus Christ. Now, why so? Because there is in the human breast a deep conviction of the vast distance between God and men, but at the same time insatiable longing to have it bridged over, and a fond persuasion that this difficulty must and can be met. From this state of mind sprang the conceptionpervading alike the East and the West in different forms, and far from being confined to the vulgar, nor originating with themthat there exist intermediate and subordinate divinities, or emanations from the supreme Divinity through whom the two extremities meet. Now what Christianity does is not to extinguish this conviction and this emotion, out of which the universe came to be thus ignorantly peopled, but to disclose the sublime Reality that underlies all these dreamings, namely, that while there is one Fontal Source of all things, one God, the Father, of whom are all things, there is also one (Mediatorial) Lord, even Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whose intervention we through Him are brought nigh to this one God, otherwise unapproachable. See 1Jn 1:1-4, where this same profound truth is expressedin studied opposition to that subtle Gnosticism, which even in our apostles time was stealing into the atmosphere of Christian thought (as is plain from the Epistle to the Colossians), but was threatening, in the beloved disciples old age, when he wrote his first Epistle, to darken the air of the churches of Proconsular Asia and the surrounding region.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

yet to us there is one God, the Father [contradicting the many], of whom are all things [whose creatorship undeifies all other beings, reducing them to mere creatures], and we unto him [created as his peculiar treasure and possession, and hence exalted far above the idols which we once worshiped]; and one Lord [also contradicting the many], Jesus Christ, through whom are all things [as the Father’s creative executive– Joh 1:3; Heb 1:2], and we through him. [regenerated and reconciled to the Father.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

6. But there is unto us one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we in Him. Here Paul clears up the problem and simplifies the whole matter, though so many idols are called gods, yet it is but a freak of human fancy, Jehovah being the only God in the universe; and though men in all ages and nations have been called lords, yet Jesus Christ the God-man is the only Lord in all the boundless universe.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 6

By whom; by whose agency. As the great Mediator, Jesus Christ is here, as elsewhere, represented as the vicegerent of God, sitting at his right hand, and administering his moral and providential government.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, {f} of whom [are] all things, and we {g} in him; and {h} one Lord Jesus Christ, {i} by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

(f) When the Father is distinguished from the Son, he is named the beginning of all things.

(g) We have our being in him.

(h) But as the Father is called Lord, so is the Son therefore God: therefore this word “one” does not regard the persons, but the natures.

(i) This word “by” does not signify the instrumental cause, but the efficient: for the Father and the Son work together, which is not so to be taken that we make two causes, seeing they have both but one nature, though they are distinct persons.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

For instructed Christians there is only one God and one Lord. Paul did not mean that there are two separate beings, God and Lord. These are two names for the one true God who exists as Father and Son. The Scriptures establish the deity of Jesus Christ elsewhere (e.g., Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14; Joh 10:30; Col 1:15-19; et al.). Paul did not argue that point here but simply stated the Son’s equality with the Father within the Godhead.

The point of difference is this. The Father is the source and goal of all things whereas the Son is the agent though whom all things have come from God and will return to God. Since Paul’s point was the unity of the Godhead, there was no need to complicate matters by referring to the Holy Spirit here.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)