Jesus first creation

The study of Colossians 1 has lead many to more questions than answers.  Addressing the preexistence of Christ, many have argued that verse 15 places Christ as the first in the created order, while others have appealed to verse 16 for the purposes of denying this. Interestingly, some on the Trinitarian front have come to admit that Colossians 1:15, by itself, does teach that Christ is created, when read literally.  Nevertheless, they feel that such an interpretation is ruled out when read in context.  Within this article we will examine the basis for all of these claims and see the position that best fits the evidence.

Of primary importance is that we understand the meaning and use of the word “firstborn,” translated from the Greek word prwto&tokoj (prototokos).   It is derived from the words prw~toj, meaning first, and to&koj, meaning begotten (with the verbal form being ti&ktw).  Numerous examples of prwto&tokoj are found within Scripture and Greek literature. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) reads of the firstborn of various animals (Gen. 4:4; Ex. 34:19; Num. 18:17; Deut. 15:19) and of men. (Ex. 22:29; Num. 3:40; Neh. 10:36)  Here the word carries the plain sense of one who is “born first.”  This same thought is carried over into the New Testament, where Jesus Christ is identified as the firstborn of Mary, namely, the first child that she bore. (Mat. 1:25; Luk. 2:7)

Outside of the Bible both Josephus and Clement tell of Abel giving “the firstborn of sheep” as a sacrifice. (Ant 1:53; 1Clem. 4:1)  Josephus speaks of the firstborn children that were killed in Egypt (Ant. 2:313), which is universally understood as the children that were born first to their parents.  Philo also used the term literally, identifying Cain as the “firstborn” of Adam and Eve, as their first child. (Che. 1:54) The Apocrypha also uses the term in a literal sense, referring to a “firstborn son” as an “only child.” (Pss. 18:4)

The term firstborn can at times take for itself a figurative meaning.  Lou and Nida explain: “In Jewish society the rights and responsibilities of being a firstborn son resulted in considerable prestige and status. The firstborn son, for example, received twice as much in inheritance as any other offspring.”  The right of the firstborn was something that could be transferred.  In such cases, a person who was not the firstborn would come to be identified as the firstborn in a figurative way, identifying the one that possessed the firstborn right.  In such cases the one who is born first continues to be identified as the firstborn in a literal sense, though without the privileges associated of the birthright, as can be demonstrated by example.

To see what we have explained, consider the example of the first children born to Isaac.  Esau was the firstborn, the child that was literally “born first.” (Gen. 25:25)  He was Jacob’s older brother.  Later in life Esau requested bread and stew from Jacob, and he agreed to provide it, but only in exchange for Esau’s right as firstborn.  When Esau agreed, the rights and privileges that were bestowed upon Esau as the firstborn were transferred to Jacob. (Gen. 25:30-34)  Even though this right was transferred to Jacob, he was still not considered Isaac’s literal firstborn.  He was not the child born first to Isaac.  Esau  acknowledged that he no longer possessed the right of the firstborn (Gen. 27:36; cf. Gen. 25:34), but he continued to recognize that although he had given up his birthright, he was the true, literal firstborn. (Gen. 27:32)

From the account in Genesis we learn that when one is figuratively the firstborn there remains one who is literally the firstborn.  The one who is so figuratively has, for some reason, been given the rights properly due to the one that holds the literal position.  The one who literally holds the firstborn position once possessed the rights of that position, but for one reason or another those rights were taken or given up.

Examples of the figurative firstborn are perhaps found in Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9.  These texts speak of Israel and Ephraim as God’s firstborn, respectively.  The respective contexts dictate that the subjects represent the nation of Israel.  Neither text, however, is addressing the positions of the men, Israel and Ephraim, relative to their respective human fathers.

These texts could perhaps be understood literally.  This would present Israel as the first nation to have received a divine decree by which it came to exist.  This understanding would mean that Israel was literally God’s firstborn nation.  Nevertheless, if it were understood figuratively, it would only mean that the rights that belonged to the first nation that did exist (even if it did so without an explicit divine decree) were given to Israel.  So Israel received the double inheritance from God, making the people of Israel especially blessed.

Another figurative text is found when God promises to make David firstborn in Psalm 89:27.  Though this text has a clear Messianic undertone, in its original context it likely refers to David’s covenant position with God.  In this text the parallel to David as firstborn is seen in that he is “the highest of the kings of the earth.”  (Psa. 89:27)  In this context we might understand that the first human to ever hold a position of “king” was literally the “firstborn.”  If the thought were literal, this one, through his descendents, would have had a kingdom that grew, being greater than all subsequent kingdoms.  As this did not happen, David is given the position of this one.

Two figurative examples occur within the Hebrew Scriptures that are not translated to prwto&tokoj in the Septuagint.  The first example is Job 38:17, where we read of a disease as “the firstborn of death.”  The language is clearly poetic, for death itself is not conscious and it does not bear children. The thought is that a disease is the greatest of those that cause death.  Similarly, in Isaiah 14:30 we read of “the firstborn of the poor,” which is a passage that contains clear poetic imagery. (cf. Isa. 14:8, 31)  The thought is that of those that are poor, the firstborn is the poorest.

While a select few examples of prwto&tokoj are figurative, it is most often used literally.  Because of this, unless the context presents some overriding factor, a literal application of the term should be anticipated.  We would not assume a figurative meaning, but when the context clearly dictates a figurative meaning we should also be willing to accept it.

The Firstborn of All Creation

To understand how Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” we must understand the background of the hymn in which he is identified as such.  By understanding this background we can compare our interpretation of Colossians 1 with it.  If one’s interpretation proves compatible with the literary background, it can be considered possible, yet if it does not prove to be compatible, then we must set it aside as false.

The background of the Colossians hymn is not unanimously agreed upon by scholars, though there is a clear majority consensus.  We have taken to agreeing with the majority on this, for the evidence favors this view.  This majority has come to understand this text as an allusion to Wisdom in Proverbs 8.

Regardless of whether or not one chooses to equate Jesus Christ with Wisdom (a position that we do take and have put forth significant evidence for in our article Jesus Christ - Wisdom Personified) is not entirely relevant.  The point need not be that Jesus Christ is Wisdom (though, again, we feel he is), but only that the language used in the passage is based upon that which is used for Wisdom.  For example, Brown explains that “the closest and most commonly accepted background for the description in [Colossians 1:]15-16a is the OT picture of personified female Wisdom, the image of God’s goodness (Wisdom 7:26) who worked with God in establishing all other things (Prov 3:19)- that Wisdom was created by God at the beginning (Prov 8:22; Sirach 24:9).”  Similarly, C.F. Burney notes the connection in his article Christ as the ARXH of Creation: “No one can contemplate the rendering which I have, as I hope, substantiated for יְֽהוָ֗ה קָ֭נָנִי רֵאשִׁ֣ית דַּרְכֹּ֑ו “The Lord begat me as the beginning of His way” (i.e. His creative activity) without perceiving that prwto&tokoj pa&shj kti&sewj “the first-begotten of all creation” can hardly be other than a direct reference to the O.T. passage [Prov. 8:22].”

But how does one make this connection?  Burney continues:  “This conclusion, which at first I supposed to have been unnoticed (it is not found, for example, in Lightfoot’s commentary), I have since discovered to have been anticipated by St Epiphanius (c. Haer. II lxxiii 7).  His words are ‘In place of a)rxh&n the Apostle used prw~toj, in place of genna~| me (i.e. the LXX rendering of חֹולָֽלְתִּי ‘I was brought forth’ in v. 25) the term to&koj, for the whole statement ‘E!ktise&n me a)rxh&n u(dwn au)tou! and Genna~| me the expression Prwto&tokoj pa&shj kti&sewj, instead of e)qemeli&wse&n me (v. 23) the statement E)n au)tw~| e)kti&sqh ta& pa_nta…’”

If you have not had the opportunity to study Greek these comments might mean little to you.  Therefore, a closer analysis of the expressions that run in parallel between Proverbs 8 and Colossians 1 might be beneficial.

In the Septuagint version of Proverbs 8:22 we find the word a)rxh.  It is translated either as “first” or “beginning” and here Wisdom is said to be the a)rxh of God’s ways.  God’s ways, as Burney notes of this context, refer to his creative ways. (cf. Job 26:14; 40:19) It is a reference to his activities, which began with creation.  The thought of “first” parallels Colossians 1:15’s use of prwto&-, which we noted to have come from the Greek word prw~toj, also translated as “first.”  Similarly, Proverbs 8:24 reads of Wisdom having been “born.”  This is translated from the word genna&w.  The parallel to Colossians 1:15 is seen in -tokoj, coming from the Greek word to&koj, meaning begotten.

So while Proverbs 8:22-26 presents Wisdom as the “first” to be “born,” Colossians 1:15 defines Christ as “firstborn.”  As already noted, the term firstborn literally refers to the one who is born first, so we would naturally understand Christ to fill this position.  Much of the point can be summarized in the words of Carson: “Paul’s language comes from G[enesis] 1 and the OT Wisdom Literature where wisdom is called the ‘craftsman’ (Pr. 8:30). For Paul that ‘craftsman’ is not a figure of speech, but the personal, heavenly Christ who met him on the Damascus road.”   Wisdom is somehow said to work with God in, as Brown highlights, the “establishing of all other things,”while we note from The Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition Greek New Testament that Colossians 1:17 is an allusion to Proverbs 8:24-26.

In appealing to this background it is readily apparent that Wisdom is spoken of as coming into existence.  Wisdom is said to have been “born” and to be the “the first of God’s ways.” With this the thought is quite simply that Wisdom was created..  This is explicitly seen in the words of the Septuagint and Syriac versions of Proverbs 8:22, along with the Targum, where Wisdom is said to have been “created.”  Therefore, our interpretation of Colossians 1 would naturally follow this thought.

Setting the Septuagint translation aside and following the Hebrew text, some might remark that the text describes birth and not creation, giving nothing to indicate that Wisdom was created.  However, as was discussed in the article Jesus Christ - Wisdom Personified, this use of “birth” is in fact idiomatic for creation.  The thought is that Wisdom was created, while the process is described as birth.  As discussed in that article, Psalm 90:2 presents a similar thought, where the mountains, as created objects, are spoken of as having been “born.”

If, however, the thought of Jesus as the firstborn is that he is the first created, then why did Paul not simply use the Greek word prwto&ktistoj (first-created)?  Three reasons can be presented.

First, we cannot disregard the literary background of the Colossian hymn.  This background is found in Wisdom, who is the “first” to be “born.”  With the use of prwto&tokoj Paul maintained the allusion to this text.  While prwto&ktistoj would not have entirely destroyed the allusion in light of the LXX’s use of e#ktise&n (created), this would have made the allusion significantly less pronounced.

Second, we have already noted that the firstborn was not only the first child born, but he also received certain rights and privileges unique to that position.  By identifying Christ as the firstborn, he was not only seen to be the one born first, but also to have the rights and privileges that accompany the position.  Were Christ identified only as the “first-created,” the additional thought of status that is associated with the one born first would be absent.

Finally, there is good reason to question whether or not the word prwto&ktistoj would have been even contemplated by Paul or use.  The lack of evidence to support the use of the term in Paul’s day cannot be overlooked.  In fact, the first known record of the term does not come until approximately 100 years after Paul wrote his Epistle.  While this does not prove that Paul could not have used the term, we see it to be unlikely.

When all of the evidence is considered it becomes clear that prwto&tokoj was the ideal term for Paul to use.  Had he written prwto&ktistoj the Trinitarian position would have found a way to dismiss the text as they already do.  Their theology has demanded that they come up with oxymoronic teaching of him being an “eternal creation,” which is overturned by the Septuagint’s use of the aorist that is translated “created.” (Prov. 8:22)  This, as a point elsewhere made by The Expositor’s Greek Testament demonstrates, points to “a definite time” when this creation took place, thus eliminating the idea of eternity.

A Member of Creation

The thought of Christ as a member of the created order is found in more than the use of prwto&tokoj.  The two words that follow it, pa&shj kti&sewj, also point to this.  These words are in the Greek genitive case, and they are translated “of all creation.”  When the word firstborn is used with a genitive in the Septuagint and New Testament, it is interesting to note that it is only used in two ways.

The first way that this construction is used might be defined as a genitive of source.  In this case the firstborn is “of” the one in whom he originated.  Typically, this one would be the parent of the firstborn, for the parent is the source of the child, having pro-created so as to bring the child into existence.  This thought is certainly incompatible with Colossians 1:15, for it would present creation as the source of Jesus Christ!

The only other way prwto&tokoj is used is with a partitive genitive.  This type of genitive defines the group that the firstborn is a member of.  So, for example, if one were to speak of a person as the firstborn of a parent’s children, the firstborn would be the child of the group of children that was born first.

Due to the verse’s difficulty Trinitarians have been forced to essentially redefine the meaning and use of prwto&tokoj in order to overcome the plain meaning of the text and to justify their theology.  Yet, it is interesting to note that what they argue for is not even compatible with the very figurative passages to which they appeal.

The Trinitarian position has redefined prwto&tokoj to mean “preeminent over.” Wuest along with numerous others have taken this a step further, arguing that prwto&tokoj refers to Christ’s “priority to all creation and sovereignty over all creation.”  Can these views be supported by the evidence?

prwto&tokoj does include the thought of priority, yet it does not denote priority to the group that one is the firstborn of.  With regard to temporal priority, the term always defines the one that is the earliest of the group, not merely one that is before the group.  What though of the meanings “preeminent over” and “sovereign over?”  Can these meanings be justified within Scripture?  Do any of the figurative passages parallel what is found in Colossians 1:15?  Let us consider the various figurative passages to see if these meanings can apply.

God spoke of both Israel and Ephraim as his firstborn.  In Exodus 4:22, Israel is spoken of, not as a person, but as a nation.  In context, Moses is to address Pharaoh about the people, and so to speak of the man Israel would make little sense.   The Septuagint translates this as prwto&tokoj mou, and so God is identifying the nation of Israel as his firstborn.

It is certainly difficult to draw a parallel between the term as applied to an entire nation and an individual.  Even more significant is the difficulty found with this text if we here understand prwto&tokoj in a way that Trinitarians have come to in Colossians 1:15.  By viewing prwto&tokoj in Exodus 4:22 as meaning either “preeminent over” or “sovereign over” finds the nation to be preeminent over God himself!  Can one reasonably argue that Israel is the sovereign of Jehovah God?  Clearly this text does not support a differing interpretation of Colossians 1:15.

The same issues beset Jeremiah 31:9, where Ephraim is spoken of.  As with Exodus 4:22, this text speaks of Ephraim not as the man, but as the people.  As a nation of people and as God’s firstborn, as in Exodus 4:22, no parallel can be drawn between the meaning of prwto&tokoj here and in Colossians 1:15 to support the Trinitarian position.

Most Trinitarians have appealed to Psalm 89:27 for support of their Colossians 1 argument.  In this text David is presented as having been made firstborn.  Some have suggested that the text means that David was made the firstborn of his human father Jesse, but this is not at all suggested by the context.  Even so, there are still two ways that the text might be understood.

Many Bible translations have taken the liberty of adding the possessive “my” prior to firstborn, indicating that David is God’s firstborn.  With such an understanding the same issue that besets Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9 with the meanings “preeminent over” and “sovereign over” would here apply.  With this understanding, we continue reading the passage to see that David is “the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psa. 89:27b), and this would be the result of him as God’s firstborn.

Alternatively, the text may be understood to mean that David is firstborn in that he is “the highest of the kings of the earth.”   This would be akin to saying that David is prwto&tokoj tw~n basile&wn (the firstborn of the kings).  This view, however, is equally difficult, for David still is not “preeminent over” or “sovereign over” the kings of the earth, but he is merely the one king out of them all that is the most preeminent or that holds the highest authority.  David remains one of “the kings of the earth.”

With these points alone, Psalm 89:27 can in no way be appealed to in support of the Trinitarian position on Colossians 1:15.  The most one could argue for is that Jesus is the highest of the created order, and we agree he is, as a result, in part, of him having been the first to be created.  Yet there is even more to be said on the lack of a parallel between the two texts.  David is stated to have been “made firstborn,” for he was placed in the position by God.  At no time is this said of Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:15.  While David is placed into the position of firstborn, Colossians 1:15 tells us only that Christ is the firstborn, without any idea of placement.

The two passages that speak of the firstborn in Hebrew, but without a parallel in the Septuagint, are Job 38:17 and Isaiah 14:30.  Job speaks of a disease as “the firstborn of death.”  Here the thought brought out by the use of “firstborn” is that it is the worst disease.  The meaning is either that it is derived from death in some way, or it is classed among those that cause death.  Either way, the thought is not of preeminence or sovereignty over death.  Similarly, Isaiah 14:30 reads of “the firstborn of the poor.”  Again, no thought of being “over” the poor is found, for the firstborn continues to be one of the poor, while being poorest of the poor.

Some, such as White, have pointed to Romans 8:29 as a text supposedly supporting the Trinitarian view of Colossians 1:15.  White argues:  “In Romans 8:29, the Lord Christ is described as ‘the firstborn among many brethren.’  These brethren are the glorified Christians.  Here the Lord’s superiority and sovereignty over ‘the brethren’ is acknowledged, as well as His leadership in their salvation…”  Undoubtedly White is correct when he argues that “these brethren are the glorified Christians.”  Yet how he concludes that “the Lord’s superiority and sovereignty over the brethren” is here defined by “firstborn” can hardly be explained.

The highlight of Romans 8:29 is found in that Christians are “conformed to the image” of the glorified Jesus.  Jesus Christ, as an heir of God, was given glory.  This glory was extended to Christians. (Joh. 17:22)  As the first to be in possession of this, Christ is the “firstborn.”  As others come to possess it as sons of God by the model which Christ established, he is “among many brethren.”  (cf. Gal. 4:1-7)  Undoubtedly Christ is the most exalted, as the firstborn traditionally is, but this is far from saying that this text indicates “superiority and sovereignty over ‘the brethren.’” This is an undeniable first-in-time element to the text.

At this point it is worth interjecting some comments on an argument that has struck the attention of more than a few.  Originally provided by J.B. Lightfoot, the argument stems from a Jewish source, where R. Bechai identifies God as “the firstborn of the world.”  Would not this reference give support to the Trinitarian position?  Far from it!  Stafford summarizes the issue: “Moule notes that ‘R. Bechai appears to be R. Bahya ben Asher, a late writer (died 1340 [CE]), who is scarcely important for the original meaning of our passage.’ The reason for this is not only because Bechai’s work on the Pentateuch is nearly thirteen centuries removed from the first-century use and understanding of ‘firstborn,’ but Bechai’s methods of biblical interpretation are highly questionable, to say the least . . . Apparently it does not seem to matter to Lightfoot, or those who cite him on this point, that Bechai relied on Jewish mysticism and special revelation to help him interpret the Scriptures. Abbott is correct when he says, ‘Rabbi Bechai’s designation of God as ‘firstborn of the world’ is a fanciful interpretation of Ex. xiii. 2.’”  Not only was Bechai far removed from Biblical times, alive some 1300 years after Christ, giving little indication of how they would have understood the term “firstborn” in the 1^st century, but the methods used for his argument have little to do with Scripture and the truth about God.

In reviewing the evidence it is clear that the Trinitarian position lacks a proper foundation. There is no ground for their position by way of the meaning of the term firstborn as seen in Scripture.  Trinitarians deserve credit for their creativity in coming up with this interpretation, but when compared to the evidence their position simply does not stand.

In light of this, it is of no surprise what one reference work confesses: “Translated literally (as RSV), it implies that Christ is included in the created universe….”  Indeed, we would agree.  Yet this work continues by saying that such would be “inconsistent with the context of the whole passage.”  Is this accurate?  What are the arguments involved and what does the context really indicate?

“Because in Him All Things were Created“

A consideration of the textual and grammatical evidence in Colossians 1:15 shows that the interpretation that is by far the most natural identifies Christ as the first one to have been created.  The Trinitarian position would have us reject this notion based upon what follows.  Yet it would make little sense for Paul to state something that would so naturally be taken to mean one thing, and then to turn around and speak against that which he just defined.  Certainly it is not impossible, but it is unlikely.  So we must ask, do the words of verse 16 contradict the understanding of verse 15 that we had advanced?  Or are Trinitarians forcing an unnecessary interpretation on verse 16 so as to advance their theological agenda?

The contextual argument against the plain reading of Colossians 1:15 is based upon what is defined within verse 16.  The verse begins with the Greek word o(ti, which is here translated as “because.”  Verse 16 defines the basis for him being the “firstborn of all creation.”

A consideration of verse 16 requires that two primary points be discussed.  First, we must determine what Paul meant by the Greek words ta& pa_nta (all things).  Second, we must see what is meant when the text states that this “all things” were “created in him.”  Beyond these two points that are critical to our understanding of verse 15, we will examine what it means to say that these were created “through him,” though this has already been discussed in our article Is Jesus Christ the Source of Creation? 

A clear distinction between ta& pa_nta and Jesus Christ is made in Colossians 1:16.  Because of this, it is said that the distinction indicates that Christ cannot be a part of the “all things” that refers to creation.  After all, how can Christ be part of the “all things” that have been created if he is distinguished from them?  To really understand this we must look at how language was used in Biblical times.

In Colossians 1:16 ta& pa_nta refers to all things collectively, which would here be the universe and that which is contained within it, including the spirit realm.  In Greek, however, the term “all” is often qualified by the context.  In other words, there are numerous occasions in which one that is normally included within “all” of a group is distinguished.

As an example of this, we might consider Genesis 3:20 within the Septuagint.  Here Eve is said to be “the mother of all living.”  To understand this statement as absolute would require that Eve be the mother of Adam.  In fact, she would have to be her own mother!    Nevertheless, these two are excluded by the context.  While these two would normally have been included within the class of “all living,” this specific context excludes them.  Because of the obvious contextual exclusion, Moses saw no issue in penning these words as he did, though in English we might say “all others living.”

An example of ta& pa_nta qualified by the context is found in the writings of Josephus.  In Antiquities of the Jews we read of when Antiochus prohibits the Jews from following their own laws.  It was thought that if Mattathias could be turned to do what was instructed his “follow citizens” would follow, for he had a significant influence upon the people.  But in Mattathias’ response he speaks of ta& pa_nta e!qnh, which translates literally to “all the nations.”  Now when he speaks of “all the nations,” was he also referring to his own nation, which he and the others were “citizens” of?  No, but it was speaking of the nations other than their own.  Hence, in translating this text William Whiston has rendered it as “all the other nations.”  (Ant. 12:268-269)

Another example of a contextual qualification is found in Luke 21:29.  Here we read of “the fig tree and all the trees.”  The text clearly defines the fig tree as a tree, and yet it is spoken of relative to “all the trees.”  Obviously the group of “all the trees” does not exclude the fig tree, but here, for the purposes of what is being defined, they are distinguished.  Therefore, the text speaks of what is really “all the other trees.”  Luke 13:2 does the same when a select group of Galileans is distinguished from “all the Galileans.”  While this group of Galileans would normally be included in the complete group of “Galileans,” it is for the purpose of what is being stated in this context that they are distinguished.  These are therefore distinguished from “all the other Galileans.”

It is natural to read Colossians 1:15 and understand that Jesus is a part of “all things,” although because what is being described in the context, he is distinguished as well.  The obvious thought then, as with these other texts, is that ta& pa_nta refers to “all” excluding Jesus himself.  In other words, verse 16 refers, in context, to “all other things.”

At this point some may cry foul, noting that if Paul wanted to say “all others” he could have said as much explicitly in the Greek.  Such an argument truly fails to acknowledge the evidence that we have considered.  As our examples demonstrate, when the context indicates that one is normally in the group from which that one is distinguished for contextual reasons, it is not necessary.  The thought of “other” is considered by the author to be implied.   In the case of this text, verse 15 provides a thought that qualifies verse 16.  Therefore, this objection is not sufficient.

The next portion of the text explains that the “all things” from which Christ is contextually distinguished have been created “in him.”  Some translations have taken to rendering this as “by him,” causing readers of such translations to misunderstand the verse.  These ones have mistakenly concluded that the text identifies Christ as the ultimate source of creation.  How was it then that “all things” were created “in him?”  The thought itself might seem strange to many.  How, after all, can something be created within another?  Further, how does this serve as a basis for him as the one that is the firstborn of all creation?

Scholars do not unanimously agree as to the meaning of “in him” within Colossians 1:16.  There are differing views, and if verse 16 is isolated, many (though not all) have some level of reasonableness.  Nevertheless, we must take 15 and 16 together, as a single unit.  We have come to see the most natural reading of Colossians 1:15 in light of both the grammar and background of the passage.  We should also take verse 16 in a way that just as naturally allows it to harmonize with verse 15.

For the proper interpretation it is worth considering the comments of Abbott: “The Schoolmen, following, indeed, Origen and Athanasius, interpreted the words of the causa exemplaris, viz. that the idea omnium rerum was in Christ.  So that He was, as it were, the Archetypal Universe, the summary of finite being as it existed in the Eternal Mind.  This view has been adopted by Neander, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, and others. Olshausen says: ‘The Son of God is the intelligible world, the ko/smoj mohto/j, that is, things in their Idea.  In the creation they come forth from Him to an independent existence.’ . . . This would correspond to Philo’s view of the Logos…”

What Abbott is presenting is the idea of Christ as the center of the creative ideas.  In other words, all of God’s plans for creation were brought into a type of existence within Christ.  Peake explains this thought further:  “The schoolmen, follower by some modern theologians, explain that the Son is the archetype of the universe, the kosmos nohtos, the eternal pattern after which the physical universe has been created.”  Christ served as the model for the “all things” that would follow him in coming to exist. They were based upon him as their prototype.

Interestingly, Abbott seems to strongly favor this view, which should not be surprising in that it so well accords in concept with Philo’s view on creation.  Nevertheless, both Abbott and Peake are forced to reject this interpretation.  Why?  Primarily because the text states that these things were “created in him.”  Viewing Christ as eternal, he would have to be the “eternal pattern” by which “all things” were created.  In other words, to serve as the pattern, he would have had to always have been the pattern.  The text, however, says that they were “created in him,” and so the prototypal form that he possessed would have been created.  In other words, he was created, which is entirely contrary to their view of him as the eternal God.  Both reference works properly point out that because of the aorist verb, a specific point in time for them to have been “created in him” is in view.  Can this basis for rejection be resolved?

To address the objection presented for this interpretation we need only accept the most natural interpretation of Colossians 1:15, pointing to Christ as the first of creation.  If we accept this, then it is no longer necessary for him to be the “eternal pattern.”  He would indeed be the “pattern,” but not eternal.  That it was “created in him” is in agreement with his own creation, for when God created Jesus, he established the pattern or idea for everything else that would come to be.

In light of this view we can see how Christ is “the firstborn of all creation, because all things were created in him.”  They were created in him in their idea as part of his own creation.  They came to consist in him, not physically, but ideally.  The power and energy to bring about their existence came out of God to dwell v in him as well.  This corresponds to what we see following in Colossians 1:16, which is that this same “all things” was created “through him.”

The verse concludes by stating that “all things” are also “created… for him.”  This naturally refers to his pleasure in them and his enjoyment of these things.  One cannot help but call to mind the words of Wisdom: “Then I was at His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before Him at every time; rejoicing in the world, His earth; and my delight was with the sons of men. ” (Prov. 8:30-31)

We should mention that a few Trinitarians apologists have taken to an argument in order to explain away the partitive genitive of Colossians 1:15.  These ones have argued that Christ is only a member of creation as a human, and so it is only when he “became flesh” (Joh. 1:14) that he became part of the created order.  This argument, however, disregards the context, where in 16a the basis for him holding this position is defined, and it is entirely based upon his existence before he became a man as the one in whom “all things were created.”  The holding of this position has nothing to do with him as a human.  Therefore, this argument is nothing more than a weak attempt to explain away the straightforward teaching of the text.

Continuing in the text, just as in verse 16, “all things” in verse 17 is contextually relative.  The text tells us that he is “before all things.”  Some have understood this to be an indication of eternal pre-existence, but the text does not demand such an interpretation.  As a contextually relative statement, one would expect him to be before the rest of those defined as “all things,” with him as the first to have been created.  In fact, the same concept is expressed by the apocryphal Sirach, where Wisdom is said to have been “created before all things.”  (Sir. 1:4)

The Apocrypha, though not inspired, gives us a picture at early Jewish thought, some accurate and some not.  Often times the language of early Jewish and Greek writings proved useful to the Bible writers, and so they would borrow it.  Whether Paul made use of this existing Jewish theological thought or developed his own consistent with it, the position we take here stays in the discernable first-century Jewish and Christian expression concerning Wisdom and Christ, relative to God. We do not take with us to the text the philosophy and theological of post-Apostolic writers. Thus, we can point to existing biblical (Prov 8:22ff.) and Bible-related language and thought (for example, Sirach 1:4, again, where Wisdom is said to have been “created before all things”). If Paul is making use of such biblical and Bible-related language and thought in the Colossians hymn, then he picked the rights words to describe the pre-human Messiah, “the firstborn of all creation.”

The Firstborn

Further paralleling Colossians 1:15 is a statement made in verse 18.  A footnote in the New America Bible explains: “There is a parallelism between firstborn of all creation (15) and firstborn from the dead (18).”   The thought of him as the firstborn from the dead is repeated in Revelation 1:5, while Paul further defines him as “the first fruits of those having fallen asleep.”  (1Cor. 15:20)  Paul and John understood that Christ was the first to be raised from the dead in the resurrection.  It is not surprising then that Jesus, speaking in the context of the resurrection, identifies himself as “the first.” (Rev. 1:17)

Before Christ, no other person had been raised in “the resurrection.”  No other had been given immortality and no other had been given a spiritual body. (1Cor. 15:44-45)  It is therefore significant that a first-in-time understanding of Colossians 1:18 is confirmed elsewhere.  With such a confirmation, the fact that there is a parallelism between verses 15 and 18 proves to be extremely significant, for such would confirm a first-in-time sense for verse 15.

In no way can the meaning of “preeminent over” be the meaning in verse 18.  This text includes the preposition e)k, meaning “out of.”  The thought is that Christ was removed out of the group of the dead, which he had been a part of.  This is resurrection process is spoken of as birth and he is the “first” to have received it.

It is easy to see the natural way in which Colossians 1:15-18 should be read with respects to Christ’s prior existence.  We can see both when he came to be and the role he had in creation.  The Trinitarian positions of “preeminent over” or “sovereign over” not only lack the necessary evidence, but they are simply not compatible with the language used of Wisdom in Proverbs 8.

As the Trinitarian view of the text proves incompatible with the language as used of Wisdom, we must reject it.  Yet, we must accept the obvious view, contrary to what their theology demands, and recognize that Christ was the first to be created.  He is not only the first created, but he is also the greatest of all creation.  This view best fit the language to which the passage alludes, while perfectly suited to the text itself.

If you do not see Greek characters, please download and install this Greek font for Windows or Macintosh.
Louw, J.P. and Nida, E.A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 60.46
Ephraim is perhaps used in representation of the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel.
This will be discussed in detail later in this article.
This text is rather interesting, because if we think of the firstborn right being that of a double inheritance, we could well understand here that the firstborn is the most poor by symbolically inheriting a double portion of poverty.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 803-804
Burney, C.F., Christ as the ARXH of God’s Creation (Prov. viii 22, Col. i 15-18, Rev. iii 14.), The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume XXVII, (Reprinted 1965 for Wm. Dawson & Sons LTD., London), 173.
Ibid, 173-174.
Carson, D. A. New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible Commentary. 3rd ed., edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.)  (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994)
Brown, 804.
Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, Greek Text Novum Testamentum Gracece, Ed. by B. and K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 524.
Peake, A.S., The Epistle to the Colossians,(Peake) The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 5 volume set, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, vol. 3, (Hendrickson Publishers, rprn. 2002), 504.
Revelation 1:5 might be considered the lone an exception to this. However, it is hard to truly classify it as an exception, because the thought is that he was born out of that group, having been a member of such.  It would be akin to saying that of triplets, one child is “the firstborn of the unborn children.”  The one is departing from the group of unborn children into life, having been a part of the group consisting of those unborn.  This might at most be considered an ablative genitive, but even such would not aid in the Trinitarian view of Colossians 1:15.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament - With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 104.
Weust, Kenneth S. Weust’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament, Three Volume Edition, vol. 1, first published 1973 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, rprn. 2004), 183.
White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 112.
Stafford, Greg.  Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, Second Edition, (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Book, 2000), 216-217

 Bratcher, R.G. and Nida, E.A. 1977, A Translators Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (United Bible Societies, 1977), 22.

Josephus, Flavius. The Words of Josephus: New Updated Edition - Completed and Unabridged in One Volume.  Translated by William Whiston (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987), 325.
Other examples include Matthew 26:35; Mark 4:31; Luke 3:19; 11:42; Luke 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:18.
For references that attest to “in him” as the proper translation, please see the article Is Jesus Christ the Source of Creation?
Abbott, T.K., The Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Scribner, 1902), 214.
Peake, 504.
New American Bible, Revised 1984, Catholic Publishing Co., New York.
For more information on this, please see our article The First and the Last - God, Jesus or Both?

Is Jesus Christ the Creator of Creation?

Scripture teaches that God is the creator of all things, serving as its source. (Rev. 4:11; Rom. 11:36) That God is called creator is well established throughout Scripture, but what do we make of the references made to Jesus’ role in creation? The view taken by the Trinitarian position is that Christ too must be called the creator and thus he is God. Is this what Scripture teaches?

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16
On more than one occasion the Bible testifies to Christ’s involvement in creation. To dispute such a thing would be to go beyond Scripture. Nevertheless an involvement does not make necessarily make him the creator any more than an architect would be deemed the builder of a building. Following the order of the New Testament, John 1:3 proves to be the first text for requiring consideration. It begins by stating: “All things came into being through him.” Certain translations have been found to mislead the reader by render this as “by him”, causing some to conclude that Christ is the source of creation and thus the creator. In contrast, this text shows intermediate agency, where Christ is not the creator, but the one through whom creation takes place. Dana and Mantey note: “Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the λογος as the intermediate agent.”^[1] Vincent further explains: “The preposition διά is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as διὰ του προφήτου, through the prophet (Matthew 1:22, on which see note).”^[2]

The B clause of John 1:3 tells us that “apart from him not one thing came into being.” Many Trinitarians will argue by the “not one thing” being created apart from Christ, he himself must be uncreated. On this point we would note the parallel between the language of this text and Hebrews 2:8. In this text it explains that God “left nothing not subject to [Jesus].” Nevertheless, elsewhere we are told that the one performing the action of subjecting is the one that is the exception to the “nothing.” (1Cor. 15:27) Similarly, if John 1:3 were to have an exception it would be the one through him all things came into being, which is Jesus. It might be argued that other texts teach that this is true just as other texts teach that God himself is the exception to Hebrews 2:8. (Prov. 8:22; Rev 3:14) Yet in the case of John 1:3 we need only read into the very next sentence to find the exception defined.

Taking the final two words of John 1:3 with the sentence found in verse 4, we read, “What has come into being in him was life.” Most by translations will simply say that “in him was life,” not including the words “what has come into being.” The words that make the difference are ό γεγονεν, and these translations generally connect the words with the sentence that begins at the start of verse 3. Yet, The Catholic Answer Bible relates: “Connection [of ό γεγονεν] with v[erse] 3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism.”^[3]

If we look at the testimony of the early church up to the end of the third century, the thought of those final two words belonging to the sentence of verse four is almost unanimous. Those offering such testimony include, but are not limited to, Theophilus, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, and Athenasius. Their witness on this matter is seen when they independently quote either verse 3 or verse 4. Westcott explains: “The last clause of v[erse] 3 may be taken either (1) with the words which precede, as A.V., or (2) with the words which follow. It would be difficult to find a more complete consent of ancient authorities in favour of any reading, than that which support the second punctuation: Without him was not anything made. That which hath been made in Him was life.” When 1:3 is quoted by the early church and others it does not include the final words ό γεγονεν, while when the text of 1:4 is quoted the words are attached to it.^[4]

Adding to the weight of this evidence is the poetic structure in the prologue of John. The book Anatomy of the New Testament explains: “The rhythmic, poetic character of the prologue can best be perceived in Greek, especially when the text is printed in strophic form… There is, for example, a peculiar chainlike progress in the repetition of key words in verses 1-5 and 9-19… Although the sequence is not perfect, it is too pronounced to be coincidental and unintentional.”^[5] The authors go on to provide an English translation of John 1:1-5 and in doing so the provided translation reads as follows in the key verse: “That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the light of men.” Such punctuation is accurately reflected in several translations as well, such as the New Jerusalem Bible.

To not attach the words ό γεγονεν to the sentence that continues into verse 4 would be to annihilate the poetic structure of the text. This would result in a rhythm in verses 1-3, an interruption at the beginning of verse 4 and then a continuation from the B portion of 4 into verse 5. The only real objection to this is that γεγονεν is in the perfect tense while ην is imperfect, but this is easily resolved by recognizing that ό γεγονεν is the subject of ην, with it being what came to be in him. Naturally then, the rhythm would follow through the entire set of verses and this is easily seen by accepting these two key words to be with the sentence found in verse 4.

Having established the proper reading of the text, what is the “life” that came to be in Jesus? We are told that “the life was the light of men.” From Scripture we know that “the light of men” was the Messiah himself (Isa. 9:2; Joh. 1:9; 8:12) and the text tells us that the light of men is this life, and so the Messiah must in some way also be the life.

This notion of the life coming into Jesus with him also being this life takes us back to the account of Adam’s creation in Genesis. Here God breathed “the breath of life” into Adam (Gen. 2:7), thus making life “come to be in Adam” and yet that life that then existed could be equated with none other than Adam himself. The life came to be in the Word at his creation and when he “emptied himself” (Phil. 2:7) to become flesh, that life was placed into the womb of Mary. Having been born he proved to be “the light of men,” the Messiah. The life coming to be in him would not be limited to his human existence, for the life would then not have been coming to be in him. It would have come to be in a human body in that he became flesh. (Joh. 1:14)

While some might note that the text comes after him being identified as the one through who all came to be, we should not assume that temporal order is in view. This is a poetic passage and so such an argument need not apply here. Nevertheless, a similar ordering is found within the book of Revelation that properly parallels John 1:3-4.

Turning to Revelation 5:3-4 we learn that there is a scroll. We are told that “no one was found worthy to open the book,” here paralleling the statement that “not one thing” was created apart from Christ. Well if no one was worthy to open it, how is it that Revelation 6:1 presents a seal being open? Revelation 5:6 qualifies that “no one” spoken of in verses 3-4, explaining that in actuality the Lamb is worthy and this is so because he had overcome through his sacrifice and resurrection. Just as Jesus proved to be the exception to the “no one” of Revelation 5, he also proves to be the exception to the “not one thing” in John 1:3. In both cases this exception is provided immediately following the statement so as to qualify what was said, and in doing so it magnifies him as the lone exception.

Following the chain of texts speaking of Christ’s involvement in creation, Colossians 1:16 also cannot be overlooked, but as with John 1:3, this verse also shows us intermediate agency. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament explains: “The prep[osition] w[ith] the gen[itive] describes Christ as the intermediate instrument of creation (Abbott; Lightfoot).”^[6] This construction shows Christ not to be the source of creation, but an intermediate agent that was used by God. Origen explains: “Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage [John 1:3, which uses the same grammar as Colossians 1:16] also, through the Λογος, then they were not made by the Λογος, but by [one] stronger and greater than He.”^[7] This one “stronger and greater than He” is the Father, who, as explained by 1 Corinthians 8:6, is the one “out of whom” all things came.

Colossians 1:16 also speaks of Christ as the one that all things came to be “in.” While some translations render this “by” as in John 1:3, such a rendering then misleads the reader. Vincent explains the proper translation: “In is not instrumental but local; not denying the instrumentality, but putting the fact of creation with reference to its sphere and center.”^[8] Within the text, Christ is seen as the intermediate agent and the one in whom creation takes place. As the intermediate agent, God is the one doing the creation in him. How this specific played out when creation took place we are not told, and so we should not venture to speculate on this. We simply accept that it did.

Noting Christ in the role of intermediate agent, Trinitarians will at times argue that δια, the preposition used for Christ’s involvement in creation, is also used of God. (Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10) Hebrews 2:10 finds the preposition used with the accusative, carrying the meaning of “because of” according the Moule.^[9] This is followed by the same preposition with the genitive. In the case of Romans 11:36, it is used with the genitive as when applied with Christ, but preceded by the preposition εκ, too with the genitive. This is significant, as BDAG notes that δια not only shows intermediate agency, but it can also be used for “the originator of an action.”^[10] In provided lexical glosses it assigns such a definition to the two verses in question, which in light of the context including εκ in Romans 11:36, showing God as the source, and δια with the accusative in Hebrews 2:10, showing him being the primary cause, this comes as little surprise.^[11] Winer notes that “dia but rarely indicates the causa principalis… in other words but rarely seems to be equivalent to upo or para… Rom[ans] xi. 36, owing to the prepositions ek and eis, admits no other interpretation”. ^[12] To attempt to attribute this application to Christ, however, is refuted in that never does the context indicate anything but intermediate agency, as demanded by Hebrews 1:2. Winer specifically states: “Many passages, however, have been erroneously refer to this class: in J[ohn]. i. 3…” ^[13] Thus, when it comes to Christ we find him to be the “intermediary in the creation of the world.”^[14] Therefore, while the preposition δια is used for both, it is not denoting the same thing for God as when it is used for Christ. When it is used of God it is used along with other prepositions that specifically signal the use as being something other than intermediate agency. This is not merely a theological issue but a grammatical one, where contextual issues play a role in the meaning of the statements made.

Hebrews 1:10
The author of Hebrews presents a text indicating Christ’s role in creation that is commonly argued for by Trinitarians to be in support of their position. In question is Hebrews 1:10-13, a quotation from Psalms 102:25-27. The original text was applied to Jehovah, with the author of Hebrews applying it to Christ. This has lead Trinitarians to argue that Jesus must be Jehovah. Yet such an argument fails to consider the context of Hebrews.

Hebrews 1 and 2 contain numerous quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures that were originally applied to various individuals. These include David at Psalm 2:7 and 22:22 (1:5a; 2:12), Solomon at 2 Samuel 7:14 (1:5b), an unnamed Jewish King at Psalm 45:6-7 (1:8-9), God at Psalm 102:25-27 (1:10-13) and Isaiah at Isaiah 8:17-18 (2:13). Though the original applicants of these passages were not the Messiah, the author of Hebrews did not see an issue in quoting these passages so that the quoted statements applied to Jesus.

That the author of Hebrews did not intend to identify Jesus with the original applicants of the quoted texts is clearly evident when we consider the full context of those passages. As an example, we note that Hebrews 1:5 is quoted in part from 2 Samuel 7:14 where it prophetically speaks of Solomon being corrected when he sins. Were we to argue for the author of Hebrews to be equating Jesus with the person to whom the texts were originally applied we would be forced to go to 2 Samuel 7 and read the entire passage. In doing this we would note that Christ did sin, for it was prophesied that one in the original context would.

In this same way, we observe that the text quoted from Psalm 102:25-27 is taken and applied to Christ though it was originally applied to God. Simply because the original application finds itself in God does not mean that it is not also true of Christ. How can this be when God is the creator?

George Buchanan gives a very proper explanation of the text: “Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut[eronomy] 32:43, in which the object of worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6)… By the same logic, since “the Lord” was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the temporal nature of the angels. [Jesus upon his resurrection was now immortal] If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and earth as well as the ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was addressed as God.”^[15]

That Christ had an involvement in creation, specifically as cited in Hebrews 1:10, is noted in verse 2 of Hebrews 1. The text clearly shows Christ as the one “through whom” God created. The truthfulness of Jesus role as the intermediate is seen in Hebrews 1:10 when we compare it to what is said of Wisdom within the book of Proverbs. Here Christ, as Wisdom,^[16] is said to have been used by God in making the heavens and the earth. (Prov. 3:19)^[17] In Proverbs 8:30 we find that Christ served the role of a “master worker”, a view and translation confirmed by the apocryphal book of Wisdom, chapter 7 verse 21, where we read that Wisdom “is the worker of all things.” (KJV) Indeed, on this point of Jesus as Wisdom being involved in creation at Proverbs 3:19, Barnes’ commentary notes: “This thought [of Jesus being the one though whom God created], developed in Prov[erbs] 8, is the first link in the chain which connects this ‘Wisdom’ with the Divine Word, the Λογος of John’s Gospel.”^[18]

The most that Hebrews 1:10 shows us that Jesus served a role in the creation of heaven and earth and in that role these words proved true of him, but in a different way than they proved true of God. (c.f. Heb. 1:2) While some might argue that the text goes on to stress the eternality of the Son, we must observe that Jesus was not the one to whom the text was originally applied any more than he was in the other passages cited. In light of this, the text is only seen applied to him after the resurrection, and thus he is immortal and eternal. This “proof text” fails to aid the Trinitarian position in any way.

Isaiah 44:24
When shown that Christ has not truly the creator the typical Trinitarian response is to go to Isaiah where it speaks of God “spreading out the earth by [himself].” (Isa. 44:24) It then goes on to explain that he is “stretching out the heavens alone.” If Jesus is not Jehovah does the fact that Jesus is said to be God’s intermediate agent, with the heavens being “the works” of his own hands, contradict this?

When we consider the context of Isaiah 44 we recognize that it is contrasting God with the idol gods of the nations. These were not really gods, but as we have elsewhere discussed, they were wood, metal and other materials that the people had formed into their gods. In this proper context the point of God’s statement is that he was the one that created the heavens and the earth, not these false gods who the nations claimed were on par or superior to him. Recognizing the context, when we consider the thought of the creation of the universe and earth, along with other planets, it is easy to see how God’s statement holds true without presenting any issue for Jesus’ role as intermediate agent.

God created the universe by himself, for he himself is the source of all that is. Yet this did not prohibit him from making use of his own creation to bring about other creation. He made use of various existent creation and brought it together to form things such as the planets and the stars. Gravity was made use of, as were various gasses that were brought together by that gravity. Land was formed through the eruption of volcanoes, where lava cooled and formed solid ground. The process of forming new land in this way even continues today.

The fact that he used these does not contradict his clear statement, for they too are his own creation and so they prove only to be the means that he uses to bring further creation about. In that same way, as one of his creation, God used Jesus. It is not because he has to but because he wanted to. As God’s intermediate agent Jesus cannot be counted as the source of creation. He is God’s means of bringing creation about. While Jesus is a person, he is just as much one of God’s creation as the impersonal things that God made use of in bringing so much of his creation about.

How then does this relate to the text? We must remember that the text is dealing with competing gods that were placed on the same level as Jehovah by the nations. These were gods that were not created by Jehovah, but they were in opposition to him. Their involvement in any sort would be contrary to Jehovah’s statement, and so his point is proper and correct in that he does it by himself, without the help of any who people claimed that were co-equal and co-eternal with him. With creation originating in Jehovah alone, it does not matter whether or not he made use of his own creation to bring about further creation, for even that creation originates within him.^[19]

This text presents a classic example of Trinitarian proof texting, where a text is taken entirely out of context in order to make the text mean something that it was never intended. This is an abuse of Scripture. While a text, and especially a single sentence or two might have an absolute meaning of some type if taken in isolation, in context that does not always remain true.^[20] When we read a sentence in Scripture we must not ask ourselves what that sentence means in isolation, but we must ask what it means in context. This is true of all Scripture, not this text alone. In the case of Isaiah 44:24, the context clarifies what the text means, It is clear that there is no contradiction between this passage and what we have already discussed.

It is therefore seen that while Christ had a role in creation, Scripture never articulates him as the creator. In fact, he is distinguished repeatedly from the creator, shown to have served an intermediate role, next to the creator. (Prov. 8:30) If one were to identify Christ as “creator,” it would necessarily be in a different sense than the Almighty. This one served as the source of all things, while Jesus proved to be the one that this one used to bring it about.^[21]

---

[1] Dana, H.E. and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Dana and Mantey), Printing with new index to Scripture References, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1957.) 162.
[2] Vincent, M. R. Word Studies in the New Testament (VWS), vol 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers)
[3] The Catholic Answer Bible: New American Bible (Our Sunday Visitor, 2002), 1137.
[4] Westcott, B.F. The Gospel According to St. John (Baker book House, Grand Rapids Michigan, 1980 reprint of two volume 1908 edition), 4.
[5] Spivey, Robert A. and Smith Jr, D. Moddy. Anatomy of the New Testament – A Guide to Its Structure and Meaning (Anatomy), Second Edition (New York: Macmillian Publishing Co, 1974.), 433.
[6] Rogers Jr, Cleon L. and Rogers III, Cleon L. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (NLEK), (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998.) 461.
[7] Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2:6.
[8] VWS, vol 3, 468.
[9] Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Idiom Book). 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.) 56.
[10] Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). Revised by F. W. Danker and F. W. Gingrich. Translated into English by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 225.
[11] Similar would be Galatians 1:1 where dia takes on itself the sense of source with the use of apo paralleling it.
[12] Winer, G. B. A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament (Andover: Warren F.. Draper, 1897.) 378-9
[13] IBID
[14] BDAG, 225.
[15] Buchanan, George Wesley. The Anchor Bible, Vol36, To The Hebrews. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.) 22. Bracketed comments added for clarity.
[16] For a detailed discussion in this fact, please see our article: Jesus Christ – Wisdom Personified
[17] Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa are both found to attribute this text to Christ.
[18] Barnes, Albert; Murphy, James G.; Cook, F.C. and Pusey, E.B. Barnes Notes, Originally Published London: Blackie & Son, 1847, Reprinted 2005, Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Volume. 5, 21.
[19] Job 9:8 offers a thought similar to that of Isaiah 44:24. Here the contrast is made between God as the source of all true power and activity and man who cannot be compared to God. (Job. 9:2) That this does not exclude God making use of another himself or one being capable of something by power granted by God is seen in the B portion of the verse. We read that he is the one that “treads upon the waves of the sea.” Following the LXX we see that the text is specifically referring to the act of walking on the sea. While one might be quick to point out that Jesus did this very same thing, the absolute, out of context use of this text is defeated when we observe that the apostle Peter also walked upon the sea. In context, this text remains correct though in that Peter was only able to do it by his faith, so that the power of God acted through him, allowing this task. In a similar way then, for God to make use of his creation or for another to act with his power in a role of carrying out this action is not contradictory. The simple sense of the verse is that no one other than God possesses such an ability in himself.
[20] We have elsewhere presented Exodus 20:4 as an example of the necessity of keeping a passage in context. This particular text speaks of not creating any carved images. Taking this text out of context would force one to conclude that Solomon’s temple violated this law due to the numerous carved images within it. However, when we keep Exodus 20:4 in context we understand that the carved images that are spoken of are those that were to be used as idols. Thus, while Exodus 20:4 might “prove” that Solomon’s temple violated the law, when we place the passage in context we understand that the temple did no such thing. In the same way, when Isaiah 44:24 is taken out of context it might seem to contradict the idea of God using Christ as an intermediate in his creative works, but when we place the text in context and recognize what is and is not being said by the passage, it becomes plain that there is no such contradiction.
[21] It should be noted that this discussion has not made a substantial argument for Christ having been created, but that has not been the intent. Such a discussion has taken place elsewhere and future articles will look into this matter further.

http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/creator/

Beginnings

The Hebrew word "Re’shiyth" [or, reshith] , is translated beginning in connection with the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and of the angels before the creation of the heavens and the earth (Proverbs 8:22). The Greek word "arche" [or, arch, arkhe, as some prefer], is translated "beginning" in connection with the creation of the earth and the heavens (Hebrews 1:10), of the world of mankind (John 1:1,2,10), and of the church as God’s new creation (2 Thessalonians 2:13) Neither of these words ever mean eternity, or a beginning in eternity (outside of time, that is, a beginning in the realm where time does not exist), nor that there was no "time" before the "beginning" spoken of, as some try to read that thought into Genesis 1:1; Proverbs 8:22; John 1:1,2; Colossians 1:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

That "resheth" means any beginning, but never means eternity — without time, or eternal duration before the beginning spoken of — is evident from the following verses: Deuteronomy 11:12; 21:17; Job 8:7; 42:12; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; 17:14; Ecclesiastes 7:8; Isaiah 46:10; Jeremiah 26:1; 28:1; Micah 1:13. That "arche" means any beginning, but never means eternity — without time, or eternal duration before the beginning spoken of — is evident from the following passages: Matthew 19:4,8; 24:8,21; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:2; John 2:11; 6:64; 8:25,44; 16:4; Acts 11:15; Philippians 4:15; Hebrews 1:10; 3:14; 7:3; 2 Peter 3:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7,13,14,24; 3:8,11; 2 John 5,6; Revelation 1:8; 3:14.

Therefore, we understand that in Genesis 1:1; Proverbs 8:22; John 1:1,2; Colossians 1:18 , and 2 Thessalonians 2:13, several different beginnings of God’s creative work may be referred to, at different points in time.

The first beginning of any creation is that of the spirit creature referred to as the Logos, also referred to as the wisdom of God. — "Yahweh had constituted me the beginning of his way, before his works, at the commencement of that time; At the outset of the ages, had I been established, in advance of the antiquities of the earth; When there was no resounding deep, I had been brought forth, when there were no fountains, abounding with water;" (Proverbs 8:22-24, Rotherham) "The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old." (Jewish Publication Society - 1917) "The firstborn of every creature." (Colossians 1:15) "The beginning of the creation of God." — Revelation 3:14, See Objection 1, below.

Another beginning alluded to in scripture is the beginning of other spirit creatures, such as the angels. We know from Job that these were created and had their beginning before man, and reasonably before the sun, stars, planets, moon, etc. — Job 38:7; Hebrews 1:7; compare with 4-11; Ezekiel 28:11-19; Isaiah 14:12.

The next beginning alluded to in scripture is the beginning of the stars, planets, the physical heavens and the physical earth. — the material universe. These, we believe, were created before the six days of creation referred to in Exodus 20:11; 31:17. — Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 8:3; 33:6

Then we have the beginning that refers to the ordering of the physical heavens and the earth; this is called the beginning of the heavens (sky) and the earth as the world in which man lives, the famed six days of creation. (John 1:1,2,10; Genesis 1:1; 2:1-4; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Matthew 19:4,5; 2 Peter 3:4)

There are also other beginnings that are relative to a creative process. One of these (Colossians 1:1 in point of time is God’s Son as the beginning of the those being born from the dead. — Acts 13:33-37; Hebrews 1:3-5; Revelation 1:5.

Likewise another beginning (2 Thessalonians 2:13) in point of time is the period from Pentecost 33 onward when the disciples were anointed with the holy spirit, as God began the generation of the new creation of the church, Christ’s body. — 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10,15; 4:24; Colossians 3:10; James 1:18.

Accordingly, the words "reshith" and "arche", used in respect to creation, refer to starting points of new and various creative periods, and, of course, do not mean eternity, but to bring to our attention the first starts of distinctive creative periods of various creatures of God.

See also Paul S. L. Johnson’s book, Creation, pages 35,36.

Objection 1

It is claimed by some that "beginning" in Revelation 3:14 is a title meaning source or one who begins, i.e. Creator. It is also claimed that Jesus is called the arche in the sense of "ruler," in Col. 1:18. Some claim that the Greek word *arche* should be translated as "origin" rather "beginning" in Revelation 3:14. Thus some translations present this verse accordingly: "prime source of all God’s creation." (New Enlgish Bible translation) "The source through whom God’s creation came." (Knox) "The beginner of God’s creation." (Williams, Goodspeed) "The Origin and Beginning and Author of God’s creation." (Amplified New Testament) In all these translations, however, it should be pointed out that the one being spoken of still represented as a different person from God, and thus not God himself.

It is further claimed that *arche*, as used in Revelation 3:14, means "ruler" of God’s creation. We are given the following scriptures where the plural of arche (archai) is used in sense of rulers (as having principality, or first place over others): Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:12; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15, Titus 3:1. Jude 1:6. We do not deny that the Greek word *arche* can be used figuratively of ones in authority [based on the sense of first position, or the higher positions in the realm being spoken of], but is that what is meant in Revelation 3:14? In Revelation 3:14, what we have is one who is spoken of as "the beginning" of God’s creation. It is not a possessive nominative followed by what is possessed, as it should be if it meant "ruler" of God’s creation. Similar Greek construction of *arche* can be found in Mark 10:6; 13:19 and 2 Peter 3:4, where beginning refers, not to a person, but a point in time when the creation of the world of mankind started. There is no doubt in these verses that *arche* does not mean "ruler". Usually the word *arche* is translated as "beginning" except in those cases where the context shows that figurative meaning of the word is meant. There is no reason to think that in Revelation 3:14 there should be any different translation, except that one, in keeping with preconceived beliefs, would like for this scripture to say other than what it says, that Jesus is the first creation of God.

Below we present the translations in the King James Version of the Greek arch (arkee, arche) in italics.
This list has been obtained from:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=746&version=kjv
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Arche". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon"

The reader may see how the word is used throughout the New Testament. Please note how John 1:1 and Revelation 3:14 use the word "beginning" in common usage. Also note especially Matthew 24:21, Mark 10:6, and 2 Peter 3:4, wherein the beginning of creation is referring to the beginning of the world of mankind. By studying the various uses of the Greek word arch, the reader may be properly informed.

• Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

• Mt 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

• Mt 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

• Mt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be

• Mr 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

• Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

• Mr 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

• Mr 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

• Lu 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

• Lu 12:11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:

• Lu 14:9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. [[We could not find any occurrence of arche in this verse.]]

• Lu 20:20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.

• Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

• Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

• Joh 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

• Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

• Joh 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

• Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

• Joh 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

• Joh 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.

• Ac 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

• Ac 11:5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:

• Ac 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

• Ac 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

• Ro 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

• 1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

• Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

• Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

• Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

• Php 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.

• 2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth

• Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

• Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

• Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

• Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

• Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

• Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

• Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

• 2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

• 1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

• 1Jo 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

• 1Jo 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

• 1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

• 1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

• 1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

• 1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

• 2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

• 2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

• Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

• Re 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

• Re 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

• Re 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

• Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Note that *arche* is not used as partitive genitive construction in Luke 12:11; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10,15; Titus 3:1; Jude 1:6. In each of these verses, the word *arche* is used in the context where words are used describing authority or power (such is not the case in Revelation 3:14), and it is clear from the context that "beginning" of something is not what is meant. Luke 20:20 is genitive, but it is apparent that is not speaking of a beginning of something. Nevertheless, the normal word used for "ruler" is the Greek word *archwn* (Strong’s #758). If "ruler" was meant in Revelation 3:14, it would seem likely that this word would have been used rather than *arche*, as it is used in Revelation 1:5.

Despite the fact that the Greek word *arche* is sometimes translated "magistrate", "power", or "ruler", note that in the writings of John, the King James Version consistently translates the Greek word *arche* as "beginning."

As far as coming up with the idea that "arche" in Revelation 3:14 means "originator" or "source", one has to look outside the New Testament Greek for such usage, for in the New Testament one cannot find such usage anywhere. Indeed, translators who wish make arche mean "origin" (as meaning "originator&quot or "source", etc., only choose to do so in Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14, whereas they usually translate "arche" as "beginning" in all the same places where the King James Version does so. Indeed, the same can be said about those translators who wish to translate these verses with anything but "beginning". Therefore, it can be seen that they are translating these two verses to suit their doctrine.

Finally we will provide a few quotes from various scholars concerning Revelation 3:14:

• The word properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. . . . The word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence. … If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact. — Albert Barnes’ /Notes on the New Testament, p. 1569.)
  

• A check of all the occurrences in NT of arkhe followed by a genitive expression…show that it always denotes a beginning or first part of something. — Greg Stafford, Jehovah’s Witness Defended, An Answer to Scolars and Critics, First edition, page 109.
  

• In the NT archē occurs 53 times, and 26 of these must have the meaning "beginning," because they are preceeded by a preposition (as "from the beginning"). In 8 instances (123) the word occurs in a genitive construction, where the meaning is also, clearly, "beginning." In 6 instances (124) the meaning "beginning" is also appropriate. In 2 instance (125) it has the meaning "corner." In 11 instances … archē has the meaning "government" or "ruler." The final uses of this word are in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14, which are both theologically significant.

  From the above it is clear that archē, in more that 75% of its occurrences, means "beginning." Apart from "corner," which also is a "beginning," the word is used in some sense connected with "government." The word archē, with the meaning "source," is nowhere attested in the NT, and 7 of the instances with the meaning "government" are in the plural. Also, the four singular occurrences with this meaning are qualified, either by "every" (1 Cor 15:24: Eph 1:21; Col 2:10) or by a genitive construction (Luke 20:20).
  ======
  Footnote 123: Matthew 24:8; Mark 1:1; 13:8,19; Hebrews 5:12; 6:1; 7:3; 2 Peter 3:4.
  Footnote 124: John 8:25; Jude 1:6; Hebrews 2:3; 3:14; Revelatin 21:6; 22:13. In several of these texts there is a contrast between the "beginning" and the "end."
  Footnote 125: Acts 19:11; 11:15
  —–Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, 1999.

Scientific view on the chicken crossing the road

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Jacques Ives Cousteau: 

Zee cheecken, unaware of zee dangare beehind heem,
crosses zee street. Weezout warning, 

zee Porsche strikes, and zee balance
of zee nature ees maintained.

Ovulation versus cretinism

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory
of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in
the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.

In reality, however, many of the world’s leading scientists are in favour
of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught
in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth.
Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This
can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the
theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately
nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a
newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of
sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where
sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive