in the One ciently puzzling. Thus, for example, Godhead J^ declaring the nonentity of the ob- jects of heathen worship, Paul asserts roundly that " none is God except One," and proceeds to explicate this assertion by remarking that, although there may exist so-called gods whether in heaven or earth, as there are — obviously among the heathen — many gods and many lords, *' yet to us there is one God, namely, the Father, from whom are all things and we unto Him " ( I Cor 8^ ^) . But he does not stop there, but adds at once, " And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him " ( i Cor 8°) . This addition might seem to a superficial reading to stultify his whole monotheistic argument: "There is no God but one; . . . for to us there is one God . and one Lord." There is but one possible solution. Obviously the one God whom Christians worship is conceived as, in some way not fully explained, without prejudice to His unity subsistent in both the ' one God,' viz., the Father and the ' one Lord,' viz., Jesus Christ. Otherwise there would be a flat contradiction
1* Cf. David Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 295 seq., where the use of the term xuptog in the Lxx. is examined, and it is added that it was as " accustomed to this usage that Paul confines the term xoptog to Christ and reserves OeSg for the Father, God " — and " this plainly points to the belief that He whom he called Lord was in some sense God as well as He who was termed ^£09" (p. 296). Cf. p. 143: "But the fact that he habitually applies to Christ the term ' Lord ' (xOpiogy a term that in the lxx. is practically equivalent to God ( ^eo? ) and is the rendering of the most solemn name of Jehovah in the O. T., shows that in his regard He was enti- tled to the worship and obedience that are due to God."
The Corroboration of Paul 229
between the emphatic assertion that " none is God but one " and the proof of this assertion offered in the explanation that to Christians there is but *' one God, viz., the Father " and " one Lord, viz., Jesus Christ." And it is clear that Paul can count upon his readers understanding that the " one Lord, Jesus Christ " bears such a relation to the " one God, the Father " that these two may together be subsumed under the category of the one God who alone exists. We shall not say that there are the beginnings of the doctrine of the Trinity here. It seems truer to say that there is the clear pre- supposition of some such doctrine as that of the Trinity here."
There is lacking, indeed, only the conjunction of "the Spirit" with "God the Father" and "Jesus the Lord " to compel us to perceive that Background "^iderlying Paul's mode of speech con- cerning God there is a clearly conceived and firmly held conviction that these three together con- stitute the one God of Christian worship. And other passages enough supply this lack. For example, later on in this same Epistle the Apostle, speaking of those gifts of the Spirit with which the Apostolic Church was blessed, remarks in the most natural way in the world: " Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.
1^ Dr. Sanday, in his otherwise excellent note on Rom i''^, neglects to consider the point here made, and speaks as if we were observing in these passages the formation of a christology and of a doctrine of the Trinity instead of the presupposition of these doctrines. He says: " The assignment of the respective titles of ' Father ' and * Lord ' rep- resents the first beginnings of christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions in i Cor 8^. Not only does the juxtaposition of ' Father ' and ' Lord ' mark a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ ; it also marks an important stage in the history of the doctrine of the
230 The Designations of Our Lord