LEE UNIVERSITY

AN EXEGESIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 8:4-6

PRESENTED TO PROFESSOR JOSHUA RICE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

BIBL-404-DOL1 I &II CORINTHIANS

THE SCHOOL OF RELIGION

BY MICHAEL R. BURGOS JR.

WINSTED, CT

AUGUST 25, 2015

Burgos

1

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real

existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods

in heaven or on earth-as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"- yet for us there

is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord,

Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist ( 1 Corinthians

8:4-6, ESV).

Περι της βρωσεως ουν των ειδωλοθυτων, οιδαμεν οτι ουδεν ειδωλον εν κοσμω και οτι

ουδεις θεος ει μη εις. και γαρ ειπερ εισιν λεγομενοι θεοι ειτε εν ουρανω ειτε επι γης,

ωσπερ εισιν θεοι πολλοι και κυριοι πολλοι, αλλʼ ημιν εις θεος ο πατηρ εξ ου τα παντα και

ημεις εις αυτον, και εις κυριος Ιησους Χριστος (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, NA28).1

I. Introduction and Prefatory Comments

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle has provided a key christological confession that is, in a

certain sense, unique to the New Testament. The text presents an extremely high christology in

concert with a simultaneous affirmation of the Father’s deity, all within a monotheistic

framework. For this reason, this paper will provide an exegesis of this text and its immediate

context. Thereafter, an application of the text will be brought to bear upon the interpretations

offered by David Bernard, a leading Oneness Pentecostal interpreter. This comparison will serve

to clarify the Oneness position in light of Pauline theology.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 occurs among a large section of didactic literature that is primarily

concerned with the theological basis of ethical teaching. In chapters 1-4 Paul spends most of his

time exhorting the Corinthians to embrace a kind of unity that eschews pride and survives upon a

1 I have chosen to omit the NA28’s pagination of 1 Cor 8:6.

Burgos

2

realistic evaluation of one’s self and others. In chapters 5-6 Paul provides instruction regarding

sexual ethics and lawsuits among the brethren. In chapter 7 Paul begins to address issues brought

to his attention in previous correspondence sent from the Corinthian church. One of those issues

consists of an articulation of the appropriate behavior as it relates to food offered to idols.

Within the relevant era in Corinth, “Meat was not a common item in the ancient diet and

was usually only consumed as part of a religious ceremony.”2 Moreover, virtually all meat sold

at by a butcher underwent a token pagan ritual and therefore a diet of meat generally connoted

assent to paganism.3 Recent converts, having been introduced into an entirely exclusive theology

wherein the Christian God is the only suitable object of devotion and worship, would have

naturally struggled with parsing through the various issues pertaining to the eating of meat.

In 1 Corinthians 8:1-8:3, Paul reminds his audience that knowledge sans love is the

seedbed of pride. “Knowledge puffs up,” but “love builds up” (8:1). A contrast between the

presumption of knowledge and the possession of love is made, and love is demonstrated supreme

since the one that loves God is “known by God.”4 However, Paul is not discounting the

importance of the possession of knowledge,5 but rather he is extolling the virtue of knowledge

governed by love.

II. Exegesis

Περι της βρωσεως ουν των ειδωλοθυτων – The conjunction ουν points back to 8:1-3 and

indicates that 8:4ff is predicated upon an understanding that love is superior to knowledge. The

2 Arnold, ZIBBC, Vol. 3, 142.

3 See Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, 704. See also Morris who quotes Kitto who stated,

“Barely-meal, olives, a little wine, fish as a relish, meat only on high holidays- such was the normal diet.”

1 Corinthians, 120. 4 In 1 Cor 8:1-3 Paul makes a play on words using both the noun “knowledge” and the verb “to

know.” In vs. 3 the phrase “known by God” invokes a well-known hebraic idiom that denotes intimacy

and care (cf. Gen 4:1; 1 Kings 1:4, Mat 1:25). 5 See Eph 4:11-14.

Burgos

3

term ειδωλοθυτον is defined as “that which has been sacrificed to idols.”6 However, since only

the procurement of animal flesh is the result of such a sacrifice, the best translation is not “food”

as the ESV has, but “meat.” BDAG states that the term “refers to sacrificial meat, part of which

was burned upon the altar as the deities’ portion, part was eaten at a solemn meal in the temple,

and part was sold in the market.”7 Since Paul prohibits involvement in the actual pagan sacrifice

and the temple meal in 1 Corinthians 10:20-22, what is likely being addressed here is the issue of

eating meat purchased from a market.

οιδαμεν οτι ουδεν ειδωλον εν κοσμω και οτι ουδεις θεος ει μη εις – In vv. 8:1-3 the Apostle

makes known the importance of love over and against knowledge. The statement, οιδαμεν οτι

ουδεν ειδωλον εν κοσμω” is therefore intended to allude back to the knowledge that “puffs up”

(8:1). The modifying phrase εν κοσμω may either refer to the non-existence of idols within the

world or that the gods idols represent, for that lack of a better term, are “non-beings” and have no

personal existence.8 Since idols certainly exist, the better choice is the latter. While idols exist

“in the world,” the gods they represent are “nothing.”9

The statement οτι ουδεις θεος ει μη εις10

invokes the language of Deuteronomy 4:35LXX

which states,

ωστε ειδησαι σε οτι κυριος ο θεος σου, ουτος θεος εστιν, και ουκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλην αυτου

(Rahlfs).

6 Louw, 5.15.

7 BDAG, 280.

8 See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 371, also n.8.

9 For the contrary view see Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. IV, 139.

10 The MT and TR include the variant ἕτερος at the end of the clause. The shorter text finds

excellent support in a number of early witnesses including P46

, Aleph, and a number of important uncials.

The longer reading finds support mainly in a corrector of Aleph, and late miniscules. That Paul was

quoting Deut 4:35LXX, in addition to the variant’s late attestation and cumbersome redundancy, make it

unlikely.

Burgos

4

So that you might know that the Lord our God he is God, and there is no other besides

him (NETS).

Also, the clause is reminiscent of certain of the monotheistic decrees of Isaiah.11

Thus, the

“knowledge” referred to in 8:1-3 is at this point summarized in the nonexistence of idols and the

existence of but one God.

και γαρ ειπερ εισιν λεγομενοι θεοι ειτε εν ουρανω ειτε επι γης, ωσπερ εισιν θεοι πολλοι και

κυριοι πολλοι - Paul here concedes the existence of “so-called” gods. These are “gods” by

appellation only. They are neither divine nor personal, as there is “no God but one.” Fee

translates και γαρ ειπερ “For even if,” which captures the conjunction better than the ESVs “For

although there may be.” The point is that even if there are so-called gods, these gods are

conceptual entities who hold sway only in the mind of the idolater. Hence, there are many

idolaters, ωσπερ εισιν θεοι πολλοι και κυριοι πολλοι. Phillips notes,

“There are scores of them [i.e., false gods] mentioned in the Bible. The Egyptians,

Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans had whole pantheons of them. To this day

the Hindus number their gods by the countless thousands. It is all a gigantic farce, at least

so far as the actual worship of idols is concerned.”12

That Paul explicitly identifies the non-being of “so-called” gods whose likeness is present

in the ritual offering of meat, does not preclude the existence of deities other than that of

Yahweh. In 1 Corinthians 10:20 Paul identifies that the actual personality underlying idols are

“demons.” Therefore, Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 8:5 is in no way a prohibition of the

existence of non-human supernatural spirit beings (i.e., gods or deities).13

In 1 Corinthians 12:2

11

E.g., Is 43:10; 45:5. 12

Phillips, Exploring 1 Corinthians, 173-174. 13

Cf. Ps 82:1. The language of angels and demons is something of a red-herring as neither

“angel” nor “demon” is a characterization of someone’s essential being. Heiser put it well when he stated,

Burgos

5

Paul reiterates the demonic activity that underlies idols. He stated, “You know that when you

were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led (ESV).” These “mute

idols” are according to Paul, ουδεν (8:4). However, the evil spirit beings that underlie these idols

lead men astray.

The phrase ωσπερ εισιν θεοι πολλοι και κυριοι πολλοι places the terms θεος and κυριος

on something of a plane. Morris has noted that, “’Lord’ was a common way of referring to deity

in the cults of the time.”14

Fee has stated that,

“The two terms “gods” and “lords”... reflect the two basic forms of Greco-Roman

religion as it has been modified by the coming of the Oriental cults. The “gods” designate

the traditional deities, who are regularly given this appellation in the literature but are

seldom referred to as kyrioi (‘lords’). The term kyrios , on the other hand, is the normal

title for the deities of the mystery cults.”15

The application of κυριος as a translation for the tetragrammaton is testimony to the common use

of the term for the Creator God, at least for hellenized Jews such as the Apostle.

αλλʼ ημιν εις θεος ο πατηρ εξ ου τα παντα και ημεις εις αυτον, και εις κυριος Ιησους

Χριστος16

– Paul begins with the emphatic contrast αλλʼ, thereby abruptly distinguishing the

“gods” and “lords” of the pagan enterprise with that which is “for us” (ημιν). The first person

pronoun harkens back to the verb οιδαμεν and the motif of knowledge in 8:1-3. Thus, that there

“The term ‘angel’ means ‘messenger’ and therefore describes a task, not ontology,” Heiser, Monotheism,

91. The implication then, is that when Paul states, “there is no God but one,” what he means is, there is

one Creator-God who is categorically set apart from all of creation, and who is alone the suitable object of

adoration and worship for all of creation. 14

Morris, 1 Corinthians, 122. 15

Fee, 1 Corinthians, 372. 16

A few miniscules (The NA28 cites 630, 1881) contain the reading και έν πνευμα αγιον, εν ω

τα παντα after Χριστος. Metzger notes that Gregory Nazianzus cites this reading in the 4th

century (Or.

Bas. 39.12). See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 557. The lack of external attestation and the

transparent purpose behind such an assertion preclude the reading from serious consideration.

Burgos

6

is one God and one Lord who hold complimentary roles in the creation of all things rounds out

the “knowledge” that Paul is eager to see accompanied with love. Subsequently in vs. 7, Paul

states,

“However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with

idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak is defiled”

(ESV).

In 8:7, the purpose of the entire pericope is laid bare. The “all” consists of those among the

fellowship who, as Gentile converts, hold an undeveloped theology whereby their ignorance of

the non-being of the pagan gods represented by idols results in a compromise of their conscience.

Within the statement αλλʼ ημιν εις θεος ο πατηρ εξ ου τα παντα και ημεις εις αυτον, και εις

κυριος Ιησους Χριστος, the Apostle has utilized the keys terms found within the Septuagint’s

rendering of the Shema and he has applied them to both the Father and the Son while attributing

different functions in creation to them both- and this within an exhortation dealing with idols and

idolatry.

Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ, κυριος ο θεος ημων κυριος εις εστιν. (Deuteronomy 6:4 LXX, Rahlfs)

αλλʼ ημιν εις θεος ο πατηρ εξ ου τα παντα και ημεις εις αυτον, και εις κυριος Ιησους

Χριστος διʼ ου τα παντα και ημεις διʼ αυτου. (1 Corinthians 8:6, NA28)

The table below reflects a comparison of the relevant texts while not including Paul’s

dual reference to creation.

Burgos

7

Ἄκουε Ισραηλ

Hear Israel

κυριος ο θεος

Lord God

ημων κυριος εις εστιν

our Lord is one

αλλʼ ημιν

But to us

εις θεος ο πατηρ

one God the Father

και εις κυριος Ιησους

Χριστος

and one Lord Jesus Christ

That Paul was introducing a second God or an inferior divine being using the language of Israel’s

most definitive creed while referencing creation is absurd. Rather, Paul reaffirmed monotheism

in vs 4 (i.e., “there is no God but one”), and then effectively recast the language of the Shema to

reflect the inclusion of both the Father and Son. Hence, within Pauline theology, the affirmation

of monotheism was not in conflict with the identification of the Father as θεος and the Son as

κυριος- the Septuagintal rendering of the tetragrammaton.

The difficulty for Oneness theology as it pertains to 1 Corinthians 8:6 and its use of the

Shema is not in its inclusion of the Father and Son as God and Lord respectively, but rather its

citation of the Father and Son as mutually active in creation. The Father is the one εξ ου τα

παντα and the Son is the one διʼ ου τα παντα. Since Oneness theology posits unitarianism and an

incarnation, the identification of the Son as the one “through whom” all things were made must

either be reconciled by means of an appeal to anachronism or that all things were created through

a unitarian God who became the Son at Bethlehem.

Regarding similar characterizations of creation through the Son (i.e., Heb 1:2; Col 1:13-

17; Eph 3:9), Bernard has argued that “These verses describe the eternal Spirit that was in the

Burgos

8

Son—the deity that was later incarnated as the Son—as the Creator.”17

An appeal to

anachronism is difficult in at 1 Corinthians 8:6 because the Father and Son are clearly

distinguished. Therefore, it cannot be that Paul here refers to Jesus as the one “through whom are

all things and through whom we exist “only in terms of “the deity that was later incarnated as the

Son” since the Father is characterized as the one “from whom are all things and for whom we

exist.” Thus, to argue that Paul or even the author of Hebrews refers to the Son’s activity in

creation using the same or similar language is untenable.

Another Oneness interpretation of the Son’s connection with the activity of creation is to

view in through the lens of the foreknowledge of the person and work of the Son within the mind

of God. For instance, Bernard has argued in The Oneness of God,

“Although the Son did not exist at the time of creation except in the mind of God, God

used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world. We know He created the

world by the Word of God (Hebrews 11:3). He created the world with the knowledge of

His plan for the Incarnation and the redemption of the cross in mind. Perhaps in this same

foreknowledge He used the Sonship to create the world. That is, He predicated the entire

creation on the future arrival of Christ.”18

In The Oneness View of Jesus Christ Bernard has similarly argued:

“How and why did God depend upon the Incarnation at creation? God created humans in

the beginning so that they would love Him, worship Him, have fellowship with Him, give

Him glory, and perform His will… At the same time, God foreknew that they would fall

into sin and thereby defeat His purpose for creation. But God… also had in His mind the

Incarnation and the plan of salvation through the atoning death of Christ. Even though He

17

Bernard, The Oneness of God, loc. 1086.

18 Bernard, The Oneness of God, loc. 1089.

Burgos

9

knew humanity would sin, He also knew that through the Son of God humanity could be

restored and could still fulfill His original purpose. In this sense God created the world

through the Son, or by using the Son. In the same way, God justified Old Testament

believers on the basis of the future Cross… Christ was not a second person who served as

the agent of creation (which would make Him subordinate, and not coequal as trinitarians

teach). Rather, we can say that God created all things in Christ and through Christ.”19

The above position relies upon an idealized preexistence of the Son as the means by

which God, knowing all he would accomplish in Christ, created all things. Like an appeal to

anachronism, this view also faces considerable difficulties. First, the preposition δια when used

with a genitive as it is in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is defined within BDAG as “a marker of personal

agency.”20

Louw and Nida similarly define the term as “a marker of intermediate agent, with

implicit or explicit causative agent.”21

If the Apostle had intended to communicate creation with

reference or in view of the Son, the appropriate construction would have employed δια with the

accusative.22

Therefore, it is unlikely that Paul would have implemented language indicative of

“personal agency” if he intended to communicate creation according to a plan within the

foreknowledge of God. Secondly, one does not need to assume an exclusively idealized

preexistence of the Son to suppose that creation was made in view of the Son. Thus, to suggest

creation “through” Jesus means “on account of” Jesus because of God’s preexistent

foreknowledge of Christ is unnecessary and a red herring. Third, present within 1 Corinthians

8:6, there is a causal subject-intermediate agent relationship depicted. The Father is depicted as

the one “from whom are all things,” and hence the Father is depicted as the source (i.e., the

19

Bernard, The Oneness View of Jesus Christ, XX. 20

BDAG, 225. See also TDNT, Vol. 2, 66. See esp. Wallace, GGBB, 164. 21

Louw, 90.4. 22

δια with the accusative is defined as “a marker of a participant constituting the cause or reason

for an event or state- because of, on account of” (Louw, 90.44). See also BDAG, 225-226.

Burgos

10

cause) from whence all things come. So too, the Father is the one “for whom we exist,” as the

telos of man is bound up in the purpose of God. The contextual complement is found in the one

“through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”23

Subsequently, if one is consistent

and does not idealize the causal existence of the Father, then there is little reason to idealize the

agency of the Son in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Both within 1 Corinthians and the balance of the New Testament, the utilization of a

intermediate agent paradigm is made evident using the language of δια with a genitive. The

construction is usually applied to the Son, although it ought to be noted that given certain

contexts, the preposition may refer to a causal subject and not an intermediate agent.24

However,

whether a text follows the predominant construction indicating agency, or the rarer occurrence

indicating only a causal subject, it is the context which is determinative.

Bernard’s objection to the cause-agent characterization of the Father and Son is the

assertion that if the Son was agent, he would also be “subordinate and not coequal” to the Father.

Intrinsic in this objection is a category error since one’s economic function is not necessarily

indicative of ontological subordination any more than the humble submission of a wife to her

husband assumes her ontological inferiority.25

Functionally, there is an economy of order within

the Trinity as it relates to creation, and this economy features both the holy characteristics of

leadership and humility. Additionally, even if the creative agency of the Son was indicative of

ontological inferiority, such an objection would not mitigate what the text indicates. That is, it is

23

Fee understands the last clause (και ημεις διʼ αυτου) to refer to redemption (See Fee, Pauline

Christology, 91.). The first person plural pronouns in both this clause and its parallel (και ημεις εις αυτον)

suggests as much as Paul is writing to a believing congregation (cf. Rom 5:1-2; 7:4; 8:37; Eph 2:18; Col

1:20). If one is intent upon idealizing the Son in the first clause, then it remains entirely inconsistent to

refrain from idealizing the Son in the second clause. 24

E.g., Rom 11:36; Heb 2:15. Within both of these doxological texts, there isn’t an intermediate

agent either made explicit or implied by the context. 25

See Eph 5:22; Col 3:18.

Burgos

11

the meaning of the text that must determine theology, and not theology that determines the

meaning of the text.

III. Conclusion

The motif of knowledge throughout 1 Corinthians 8 assumes the general familiarity of

the Apostle’s audience with the subject material he was addressing. That is, while Paul was

addressing issues precipitated by questions brought about through an earlier correspondence,

Paul relies upon the familiarity of his subject material to his audience in his articulation. Likely,

this familiarity is due to Paul’s previous in-person teaching at the church of Corinth. Hence,

some possessing a more thorough understanding of the nature of idols in light of the reality of

the Father and Son, used their knowledge and in so doing then have become a “stumbling block

to the weak” (8:9). Consequently, the high christology present within 1 Corinthians 8:6 was a

fixture in the most primitive Christian context.

The apologetic application of 1 Corinthians 8:6 to the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation

serves as a foil to demonstrate the consistency of orthodox theology with the biblical text. Thus,

whereas movements like Oneness Pentecostalism often decry the post-biblical nature of

trinitarian christology, 1 Corinthians 8:6 demonstrates the deeply rooted biblical nature of

trinitarian belief.

Burgos

12

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt and Barbara. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28). 28th

Ed.

Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2012. Print.

Arnold, Clinton E. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (ZIBBC).

Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Print.

Bauer, W. F. W, Danker, W. F., Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich Eds. A Greek-English Lexicon

of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). 3rd

Ed. Chicago: Univ. of

Chicago Press, 2000. Print.

Bernard, David K. Pentecostal Theology Volume 1: The Oneness of God. Hazelwood:

Word Aflame Press, 2007. Kindle.

______. The Oneness View of Jesus Christ. Hazelwood: Word Aflame Press, 1994.

Kindle.

Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First

Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Print.

______. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2007. Print.

Heiser, Michael S. “Monotheism and the Language of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew

Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Tyndale Bulletin, 65.1. 2014. 85-100.

Kittel, Gerhard, Ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1964. Print.

Louw, J. P., Nida, E. A. eds. Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based

on semantic domains, 2nd

ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996. Print.

Metzger, Bruce, M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd

ed.

Burgos

13

Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971. Print.

Morris, Leon. Tydale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians, Rev. Ed. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Print.

Myers, Allen C. ed. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1975. Print.

Phillips, John. Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Kregel, 2002. Print.

Pietersma, Albert, Wright, Benjamin G. eds. A New English Translation of the

Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (NETS).

New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007. Print.

Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Print.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. IV. Grand Rapids: Baker,

1931. Print.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Print.