What is the meaning of Romans 8:28 (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν)? / Ποια είναι η σημασία του Ρωμαίους 8:28 (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν);

The clause reading τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν can be translated in two major ways (see the “Notes on the Text and Translation” concerning the presence or absence of ό θεός), depending on how one construes the syntax and makes a choice concerning the subject. Grammatically it is possible that the subject is πάντα, taking it to be the neuter nominative plural of πάν. That is possible, because a neuter nominative plural noun takes a third person singular verb (which συνεργεί [“works together”] is). On the other hand, it is possible that πάντα is a neuter accusative plural. In that case, it could be an accusative of respect, and the subject of the clause would then be “he” (meaning “God”). Modern translations go in both directions. Those in the former group include:
KJV: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God.”
ASV: “And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good.”
NAB: “We know that all things work for good for those who love God.”
NRSV: “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God.”
NET: “And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God.”
ESV: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good.”
Those in the latter group (some of which insert “God” for clarification) include:
RSV: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”
NEB: “And in everything, as we know, he cooperates for good with those who love God.”
NIV: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him.”
NASV: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.”
The latter course is to be preferred. The primary reason for that is that “he” (= “God”) is the subject of verses both prior to and after this one (8:27; 8:29-30). One can expect that “he” would be the subject of this clause as well. Those ancient scribes who added ό θεός as the subject must have sought to clarify the sentence, which the translators of the RSV and NIV did as well, making similar judgments. And even though it has been said that the difference in meaning is not great, since either reading expresses confidence in the sovereignty of God, there is actually a profound difference. In the first instance, Paul is saying that everything works out well for those who love God. This has the ring of the optimism of modern times, although it need not, for it could mean that all that one endures (even suffering) works together for a good outcome, which could include final salvation. Still, in the final analysis, the “all” then appears to transpire for good with or without God’s involvement. In the second instance, however, Paul is saying that God works for the good of all who love him in every conceivable situation. Whatever one faces (including suffering), God is present and active to work for a good outcome, which may well be realized only eschatologically in final salvation, but ultimately the promise is sure. That perspective coheres theologically with the rest of this section (8:18-30), which sees suffering — both on the part of humans and of the rest of creation — in light of eschatological hope.

Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, A Commentary.

Συνεπαγόταν ο χριστολογικός τίτλος «Κύριος» οντολογική ταύτιση με τον Θεό για τους πρώτους χριστιανούς; / Did the Christological title “Lord” mean an ontological identification with God for early Christianity?

We have already seen that on the basis of the Kyrios title, the first Christians could apply all statements about God also to Jesus. We would oversimplify the problem, however, and fall into a heresy condemned by the ancient Church if we were to attribute to the New Testament a complete identification between God the Father and Jesus the Kyrios, and maintain that the faith of early Christianity made no distinction at all between the two. The ancient two-part confession in I Cor. 8.6, to which we have already referred in another context, indicates that the early Church by no means forgot the distinction—not even when Christ was recognized as the mediator of creation: ‘. . . for us there is one God, the Father, from (εξ) whom are all things and for (εις) whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through (διά) whom are all things and through whom we exist.’ The use of prepositions makes clear the distinction: εξ and εις with reference to God; διά with reference to Christ. We shall seek in vain for a more precise definition of the original relationship between God the Father and Christ the Kyrios.

Even with the titles ‘Logos’ and ‘Son of God’ we approach a closer definition of this relationship only in so far as they refer directly to the pre-existence of Jesus, his being ‘in the beginning’. But we shall see that these names too do not indicate unity in essence or nature between God and Christ, but rather a unity in the work of revelation, in the function of the pre-existent one. As we have seen, this is also the meaning of the transfer of the divine Kyrios name to Jesus. God and the exalted Jesus are one with regard to world dominion, which is one aspect of God’s self-revelation. It is true that Kyrios has to do primarily with the divine rule of Jesus in the present phase of Heilsgeschichte. But I Cor. 8.6 and Heb. 1.10 ff., for instance, extend the scope of this tide to include also Jesus’ original function as mediator of creation.

We do hear concerning the Logos that ‘In the beginning was the Word . . . the Word was with God, was God.’ But, almost as if the writer of the prologue of John feared further ontological speculation, he moves immediately from being to the act of revelation: ‘All things were made through him… and the Word became flesh.’ The situation is similar with the Son of God concept. Looking at the end rather than at the beginning of time, Paul leads us in I Cor. 15.28 to the very threshold of a complete eschatological absorption of the Son in the Father: ‘When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.’

It is possible to speak of the Son only in connection with the revelation of God, but in principle at least one can speak of God also apart from revelation. But the New Testament is interested only in revelation. This is the source of the New Testament paradox that the Father and Son are at once one and yet distinct—a paradox which the later Christian theologians could not explain because they attempted to do so by speculative philosophical means.

Οscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, σελ. 247, 248.