04_Romanov_391_co_415 30/10/15 13:10 Pagina 395 395 THROUGH ONE LORD ONLY 395 mediation is, clearly, to focus on a function” 19. This seems to be a key for the whole problem: understanding (and defining) the role of Jesus Christ is possible through the analysis of what he is thought to do and how it corresponds with what God is thought to do. In my view, the analysis of the functions of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ in 1 Cor 8,6 can shed some light on their rela- tionship as Paul understands it. II. The Structure of 1 Cor 8,6 The structure of 1 Cor 8,6 seems to be a primary key for under- standing both the meaning of the particular elements of the verse and its meaning as a whole. In the few words of the verse Paul has managed to present a picture of his cosmological beliefs within which the idea of soteriology finds its proper place. In v. 6a 20 Paul writes about God the Father in his relations with ta. pa,nta and h`mei/j. In order to describe these relations Paul uses the prepositions evk and eivj correspondingly. As P. Rainbow main- tains, “the evk-phrase […] and the eivj-phrase mutually define one another in such a way as to comprehend the course of history from origin to goal” 21. Having started the verse with the indication of the initial act of history, that is, creation, Paul logically completes it with the indication of the final act, that is, eschatological salva- tion. In other words, the prepositions point to God as the Creator of “all things” and as the final goal for “us” 22. LACEY, “Jesus as Mediator”, JSNT 29 (1987) 101-121; A.F. SEGAL, “The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figure in Light of Qumran”, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J.H. CHARLESWORTH) (New York 1993) 302- 328; P.G. DAVIS, “Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christo- logy”, JTS 45.2 (1994) 479-503. 19 DE LACEY, “Jesus as Mediator”, 103. 20 For the text of the verse and its division into two lines see n. 1. 21 RAINBOW, Monotheism and Christology, 152. 22 That h`mei/j eivj auvto,n should be better interpreted as “our” move to- wards God as the eschatological goal is acknowledged today by many schol- ars. The translation of the phrase as “we exist for God” with the stress only on the current state of being was strongly challenged by Sagnard; see F.Μ.M. SAGNARD, “À propos de 1 Cor viii, 6”, ETL 26 (1950) 54-58. To understand the phrase as merely “existing for God” means to question the salvific element of the verse rooted in the act of creation.