04_Romanov_391_415 04/11/15 15:11 Pagina 397 397 THROUGH ONE LORD ONLY 397 not be the same as the functions of God the Father described in v. 6a; otherwise, there is no need for Paul to form two different statements. Thus, v. 6b points to the Lord’s distinctive functions, and this dis- tinctiveness is also articulated through the use of the different preposition, that is, dia,. This difference in functions in 1 Cor 8,6 places in question some of the hypotheses mentioned in the first part of the study. The sug- gestion to consider Jesus Christ as God’s representative and Jesus Christ’s work as “on behalf of the principal” contradicts Paul’s af- firmation that Jesus Christ has his own functions. Also an under- standing of Jesus Christ as God’s instrument finds no support in the text; according to 1 Cor 8,6 Jesus Christ is not used by God, for he acts himself. But the difference in functions expressed in 1 Cor 8,6 is balanced by their unity. The verse may be divided not only into two parallel lines (one with respect to God and the other with respect to Jesus Christ) but also on the ground of the acts described here. The act of creation is described as evx ou- ta. pa,nta and diV ou- ta. pa,nta 24; both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are said to take part in this act. The same can be said about the salvific act; it is pre- sented as h`mei/j eivj auvto,n and h`mei/j diV auvtou/. Thus the acts ex- pressed through the use of the double dia, serve as an indispensable complement to the acts expressed through the use of evk and eivj, and the meaning of dia, in the whole verse can be understood only if it is properly placed within the general scheme evk – dia, – dia, – eivj 25. The use of the four prepositions allows Paul to depict a single 24 MURPHY-O’CONNOR (“1 Cor VIII,6”) rejected the presence of the cos- mological motif in the verse. This view was questioned by the majority of scholars and was later rescinded by the author; in his postscript to the article re- published in his book, Keys To First Corinthians. Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford 2009) 58-75, he recognizes the co-existence of cosmology and sote- riology in the verse with regard to God the Father; however, the absence of the cosmological motif with regard to Jesus Christ is preserved. The highly parallel structure of the verse excludes, in my view, such an interpretation. 25 It seems very important to stress the double use of dia, in the verse. The scheme is sometimes interpreted as “from… through… to” (see, for in- stance, A. THISELTON, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI 2000] 637); it implies (prob- ably, unconsciously) the instrumental meaning of dia,. But if one follows the text, namely that two acts (“from-through” and “through-to”) form the single process, then the meaning of dia, becomes much more nuanced.