Petr Pokorny also documents what he calls "the accumulation of prepositions" (an apparent Hellenistic device) and observes that the writer of Colossians uses this technique in order to show that God is the Creator, but Jesus Christ "represents" God's creation:
"Since God the Father is the initiator of creation, the preposition 'from' is not used here. Otherwise it is difficult to distinguish the functions of the various prepositions from one another. They, as a whole, are to have a cumulative effect. 'In' (instrumental ἐν) and 'through' mean almost the same thing; only the phrase 'for him' is capable of pointing to the eschatological goal of creation (Cf Rom 11:36)."
Quoted from Pokorny, Petr. Colossians: A Commentary. Peabody, 1991, pp. 78-79.
While some might look to Romans 11:36 as a proof-text which demonstrates ἐκ being applied to the "triune" God, the application of ἐκ to the Father only with respect to creation indicates that this Greek preposition is not being applied to the Son in 11:36.
From Robertson's Word Pictures in the NT:
Of him (ex autou), through him (di autou), unto him (ei auton). By these three prepositions Paul ascribes the universe (ta panta) with all the phenomena concerning creation, redemption, providence to God as the Source (ex), the Agent (di), the Goal (ei). For ever (ei tou aiwna). "For the ages." Alford terms this doxology in verses Romans 33-36 "the sublimest apostrophe existing even in the pages of inspiration itself."
Another quote that has a bearing on our understanding of Colossians 1:15-17 is taken from Emil Brunner's Dogmatics (Volume I:308):
"In this connexion the truth which we have already seen acquires new significance, that the world, it is true, was created THROUGH--διά--the Son, but not BY--ὑπό--the Son, that it has been created IN Him and UNTO Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator. It has pleased God the Creator to create the world in the Son, through the Son, and unto the Son. The fact that between the Creator and the Creation there stands the Mediator of creation means that the world is an act of the freedom of God, that it does not proceed from the Logos."
While Brunner thinks that the Son of God is "eternal," he does not believe that the Son is ever called Creator in Scripture: the Logos is the mediate agent of creation and the one through whom God brings forth the KOSMOS. But the Son is never called Creator in Scripture. Not only does the apostle Paul describe the role of the LOGOS in passive verbal terms at Col 1:15-17, but the envoy of Christ who penned Colossians missive refuses to employ ὑπό (hUPO) to delineate the role of the LOGOS vis-à-vis creation.
Brunner insists hUPO shows us that Christ is not being identified as the Creator by the apostle in Colossians 1:15-17, and I would submit that researching Greek literature will support his point. If Paul had wanted to call Jesus the Creator in Colossians, he could and likely would have used hUPO instead of διά or ἐν.
17 comments:
Some Unitarians who don't believe in the pre-existence of Jesus claim Colossians 1:16,17 has nothing to do with Jesus role in creation here because he only lived from being born of Mary and it's impossible for Jesus to had pre-exist. She writes:
"��Colossians 1:16 —
“All things were created…” occurs at the beginning and end of the verse, encircling the ��list of created things: “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” The things that are “created” are not rocks, trees, birds and animals, because those things were created by God. These things, “thrones, powers, rulers and authorities,” are the powers and positions that were ��needed by Christ to ��run his Church, and were ��created by him for that purpose. The figure of speech known as “encircling” helps us to identify the �� proper context of “all things”—that it is the narrower sense of the word “all,” and refers to the ��things needed to ��administer the Church."
She continues:
Jesus First Born from the Dead:
“He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the ��beginning, the ��firstborn ��from the dead, so that He Himself will come to ��have first place in everything.”
Colossians 1:18 NASB1995
2 Corinthians 5:17 =
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the ��new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
Ephesians 2:15 =
by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to ��create in himself ��one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace
Ephesians 4:24 =
and to put on the ��new self, ��created to ��be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
To her and other Unitarians that don't believe Jesus preexisted this just refers to the new creation and the the establishment of the church.
What is your thoughts on this?
We have discussed Unitarianism on this blog before in the com-boxes. I disagree with Unitarians but how does one convince them otherwise? Yes, the man Jesus did not preexist as such but that doesn't mean the Logos did not preexist, then become flesh (John 1:14). I think that John does portray the Logos enfleshed as the man, Jesus Christ. Technically, "Jesus" began to exist when he was conceived or given a body. That doesn't rule out a spirit being becoming flesh in the person of Jesus.
I notice the assertion above that Jesus did not create rocks or birds: only God did. Yet is that really what Colossians 1:16-17 says? I've seen some argue that Colossians is referring to the new creation whereas others think both the original and new creation are meant. Nothing she states in this correspondence proves the contrary.
Along with Colossians, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 indicate that all things cosmically were brought into being through the Lord Jesus. Compare John 1:3-4; Hebrews 1:2.
Edgar - what would your thoughts be on “encircling” in col 1:16 and that being a sign of the limited sense of Panta
I might change my mind on this point, but I'm not convinced that encircling rules out an absolute sense for panta. In my estimation, the argument from context and usage for panta is stronger than appealing to a rhetorical device. However, I could be mistaken.
Panta in col 1:16 isn’t absolute tho, is it?
It’s obvious from the context that there are exceptions
I agree that it's not absolute, but my reason why is not primarily or even because of the rhetorical device, epanadiplosis, but for the reason you mention--context and how Paul tends to use panta. Some do read it as absolute though.
Paul’s defining of panta to the Corinthians is e widen e to how Paul specifically uses panta - why did he have to define God was an exception to the things subjected to Christ?
( another argument I could refine for trinitarians - see prev conversations)
Good question, and it's a rare qualification that's made by Paul in 1 Cor. 15. One normally determines the range of panta by the context or whether it's ta panta as opposed to panta without the article. Petr Pokorny argues that ta panta commonly refers to the cosmos.
So if it’s context does that mean the writer has already defined the exceptions or said the exceptions are something else elsewhere ?
I’m citing an erroneous claim made by someone with regards to Luke’s use of panta with herbs, apparently mint and rue are defined as herbs else where - tho I see such application in the text.
Pokomy needs to debate Stafford on that one - cross referencing Staffords observations with my own, I see little to no difference in the use of the article with panta.
The writer doesn't always tell us he's making exceptions or using pas in a relative sense, but we can sometimes tell by the usage. Compare 1 John 2:20. For ta panta, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/03/revelation-411-commentaries.html
BDAG also has a useful entry on pas.
Is hupo ever used of God in relation to creation or just ek?
I ask because I can’t find an instance
Off topic slightly: Interesting- 1 John 2:20 is a good one if it’s the one I am thinking of, it’s the one I counter the Jesus knows the day and the hour claim.. it’s like my Kathos argument.
Not sure if you saw the 2 times I pasted in Tettulians comments on isa 44:24 but that would also be considered relative sense?
I don't think the NT ever uses hupo of God, but employs ek and other prepositions.
1 John 2:20 speaks of anointed ones knowing "all" or "all things"
I did see where you pasted the comments by Tertullian and wouuld agree.
Interesting- I won’t go into the variance in col 1:18 as you already know about that.
Could you give a more in-depth explanation of agency vs source - I still don’t quite follow how to tell when it’s one or the other ( iv looked at Wallace’s book aswell and sort of get it)
Yep that’s the one I tend to use.. quite a good parallel
The rhetorical question is also good “ who was with me?” Well the angels… but in a relative sense when only the subjects are in focus, no one.
I've written a lot about agency and source on this blog and will supply some links to those discussions in aa separate entry, but think about agency and source (usually) as a certain Greek preposition being paired with a certain noun case. However, the idea of source may be communicated by the case without a preposition. See Acts 1:4, for an example. Cf. 2 Corinthians 4:7, which has two examples, both with and without the preposition. Compare John 1:45; 3:2; 17:14. On the other hand, note how ek denotes source, but dia signifies agency in 1 Cor. 8:5-6.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-etymological-significance-of.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/08/genitive.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2021/08/galatians-11-3-and-greek-prepositions.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/10/some-uses-of-dia-in-gnt.html
Post a Comment